This was a flick doomed from its conception. The very idea of it was lame - take a minor character from a mediocre PG-13 film, and make a complete non-sequel while changing its tone to a PG-rated family movie. I wasn't the least bit interested. Then came the trailer. Not only did it only confirm that the film would be unfunny and generic, but it also managed to give away the ENTIRE movie; and I'm not exaggerating - every moment, every plot point, every joke is told in the trailer. It's like a 3-minute Cliff's Notes version of the flick. So obviously I wasn't gonna pay to see it, but once it hit DVD, I thought sure, I'll watch it for free. Maybe Steve Carell can save it.

Nope.

I'm still baffled as to why he signed on for this. He must have owed someone a favor. The jokes were all so flat and obvious, and the director obviously asked him to go for very broad comedy style like the original Bruce Almighty's Jim Carrey. But it's just not funny. The studio obviously tried to cash in on the success of 40-Year-Old Virgin, complete with several of Carell's past co-stars, a reference to the flick on a theater marquee, and another musical closing credits sequence. But even the talented Carrell can't save this. His co-stars don't fare much better, with people like Morgan Freeman, Jonah Hill, and Ed Helms just wasted. Wanda Sykes isn't wasted, she's just a waste in anything she does, and her horrible one-liners and reactions just make you wish people would stop giving her work.

The story itself is just predictable and lazy. It pounds you over the head with obvious foreshadowing, like Evan's disregard for the environment (drives a gas-guzzling Humvee, opts to use wood from endangered trees for his house, hates animals,...), and by the end it's just over-the-top preachy on both faith and the environment.

Why the movie was made at all is puzzling enough, but I really don't understand how it reportedly became the most expensive comedy ever. The only real effects work is the presence of all the animals, and the integration of those into the scenes is some of the worst and most obvious blue/green-screen work I've ever seen. Maybe the rental of the live animals on set cost a fortune. Who knows. But whatever it was that cost them so much, it didn't translate to quality, that's for sure. But hey, it wasn't the worst film of the year by far. There's still plenty of worse duds like Norbit and Death Proof.


The biggest problem with this film is that it's nothing like Bruce Allmighty. The first film played upon every daydreamer's fantasy of being able to control ones surroundings as one sees fit. Evan's experience though is entirely different. He has none of the control that Jim Carrey fools around with and instead the story centers around the power of belief. Now this would have been fine, since the first film was preaching the same message. The problem is that the sequel does it's preaching at the expense of the comic relief. And to add insult to injury it also throws in politics into the plot. You get the distinct feeling that there is a clear message with this film, and it's main objective is not to make you laugh. To sum things up this movie is failed mixture of Eddie Murhphy's "The Distinguished Gentleman" and Charlton Heston's "The Ten Commandments". I'm not sure if Steve Carrell is at fault here, you get a sense that it's his character that limits his abilities as a comedian, the former news anchor Evan Baxter is not supposed to be funny, he's basically an antagonist made into a protagonist which in this case only adds to the confusion of what this movies message is supposed to be about.


I very much enjoyed Bruce Almighty but the minute i found out that there was going to be a sequel WITHOUT Jim Carey, i knew it was bad. Although Steve Carell was hysterical in the first film ( the babbling scene is one of my favorites) , and, in my opinion , deserves an Emmy for his role in The Office , he is pretty weak in this dull comedy. I'm curious how much work the script writers put, because we could just as well do without the story . But even if we discard the huge plot holes (why did elephants and lions come to aid Evan when the flood only concerned that particular area of Washington) the film is simply ...not funny. I did not laugh once and as far as i remember, a comedy is supposed to make you laugh . Or giggle at least. Not this one.

There is small hope however. Evan Almighty has "family" written all over it and maybe a family viewing might be enjoyable,(kids might be entertained by the variety of animals and the silly jokes) , but ,for me, Evan Almighty simply doesn't cut it.

I give it a 4/10 and hope that Carell will be more careful when choosing his roles in the feature.


This movie was a failure as a comedy and a film in general. It was a very slow paced movie that seemed to be trying to convey a message, but the message was a cliché, hopeless mess to begin with. This movie falls on shameless environmental point, even making a self-righteous point of destroying an SUV and promoting Animal Planet.

In sitting through this, I couldn't help but notice that Steve Carell got no more than a single truly funny line. The only thing that could hypothetically mark this as a comedy is the pitiful attempt to give comic relief lines to Wanda Sykes. Her character gets frequent, cringe-worthy lines where they absolutely do not fit.

Far from the brilliance of Bruce Almighty, Evan Almighty blows its whole record-breaking budget on special effect plot devices that turn out to barely advance the plot. The movie spends the first half building up to the construction of Evan's ark, but by the end, we learn that the ark was completely meaningless, and the whole plot was a just a vessel for the stupid gags and even stupider messages. The movie concludes when we learn that the whole ark, flood, and animal gathering was just a weak political statement by none other than God. Yes, God was trying to influence politics.


Well, I watched this film expecting to be rolling in the aisles ... how wrong I was. The film was moderately amusing, at best, and irritating at worst (the slapstick comedy styling of building an ark with archaic tools, laugh ... no I didn't). I'm very disappointed given Steve Carrel was the lead. I've watch the Office US religiously, cracks me up immensely, I thought 40 year old virgin was good ... but Evan 'elp us- why on earth did he accept this script. And, as for Morgan Freeman- he's old enough to know better.

So, the idea seemed reasonable, the actors I had every faith in- but the execution was nothing to write home about and the ending, well it seemed as if they had run out of money, or ideas. This for me was one of the most contrived endings I could have imagined. They took a biblical story and dumbed it down to a cautionary tale on localized environmental issues, not even global issues, but a local bill - yawn!

In summary, reasonable start, got gradually worse and, for me, it was all washed out by the time the credit's rolled.


Although I'm not too much of a religious person, I still had relatively high hopes for this movie, as it does have the amazing Steve Carrell, and its prequel, Bruce Almighty, was actually a creative and clever Christian-themed comedy. However, Evan Almighty comes nowhere near this originality and freshness that the original has, and can't decide whether it's a comedy or a sentimental movie about faith and family values. If it had chosen one clear path of which of these themes to focus on, it could have lived up to its potential, but instead the result of mixing the two is a film that has a very flat and dry sense of humor, cheesy dialogue and motifs that attempt to give the movie profundity, but instead practically insults the intelligence of the audience, and also a very confused and clouded presentation of the movie's opaque message. It was very obvious that Evan Almighty was very poorly written, there are numerous plot holes and elements in the movie that make absolutely no sense. For example, although a large variety of exotic animals from all over the planet swarm to Evan as he builds the ark for their salvation from the flood, is their inclusion really necessary when the only "flood" that happens in the movie is downtown Washington D.C. and a suburban neighborhood, meaning they are at no risk of being wiped out? The filmmakers it seems lacked the originality to modernize the Bible story whatsoever, and instead just had it take place in a present time without changing anything to the plot, leaving many elements that just don't add up such as this and make it obvious of the idiotic motifs and writing within the movie. Overall, this work is tragic in that the acting talent of Steve Carrell and Wanda Sykes isn't exhibited because of the bland characters they portray, and that it was so poorly written that it skews and clouts many of the film's attempted themes, and makes a mockery of the first film. Finally, Evan Almighty also is an insult to the brilliant actors in it and any halfway-intelligent moviegoer, in that it fails both of them miserably.


If like me, you enjoyed the first film "Bruce Almighty", my advice to you is not to get your hopes up too high; in fact disregard any hope you possess for this movie if you are above the age of 12 and have any film-sense at all.

Without giving too much away, the story sees Evan (Bruce's nemesis co-anchor from the first film) move home with his family to the Virginian suburbs to "Change the World" with a new political path. What follows is a rather far-fetched and quite 'silly' storyline, which is obviously set out to target young children as the main target audience. Unlike it's predecessor, Evan Almighty is a family orientated film with the ambiguous genre of 'comedy' tagged upon it's misleading position of 'sequel' to which some would regard a modern-day comedy classic that can be enjoyed by a slightly more mature, upscale audience.

Generally speaking, Evan Almighty comprises itself of terrible cinematic values. The acting; omit Steve Carell and Morgan Freeman, was rigid and many of the characters were seemingly thrown in to use up the unnecessarily large budget issued for the production. Additionally, the cast includes acting legend John Goodman who makes an appearance as a heel and is seen just a few times in the movie's entirety; I didn't quite buy the character though and thought the storyline from which he was involved in lacked depth even for a family comedy. Every other character in the movie (especially the wife and kids!) deserve a mention for their acting so cheesy it could fill a king-size Kiev. Be warned though; it is the typical Americanized cheddarfest associated with many mainstream family-orientated films, so I'd advise you defend yourself with the nearest grater in sight.

It may seem the movie is worthless thus-far, however, it does have -some- promising aspects. The CGI was outstanding and it was clear that a lot of time went into modelling the Ark and producing water effects and animation of the computer generated animals towards the end. The particles, renders and textures used were aesthetically stellar. Although part of me couldn't help, but think these were undeserving to a movie with such poor ideals and were, in my opinion, 'too good' for this piece of cinema and carried the movie throughout.

Overall I view this film as a disaster in terms of continuing what was a franchise with huge potential, but unfortunately it fell short to a bad conclusion in the Almighty series and approaching the end of the film I had set my expectations high for an epic and somehow meaningful finale to make up for the mediocre content I had so far witnessed. This wasn't the case and I was deeply disappointed and confused come the closing credits. As I sat discontent I couldn't help, but think the movie wasn't anywhere near as 'Mighty' as I hoped for. In many ways the film reminded me of a watered down "Night at the Museum" as it showed similar styling and characteristics, but unfortunately was leagues below even that.

I give this movie 3 out of 10, as it is watchable, but it's definitely one to be avoided! If you HAVE to see this film, be prepared for disappointment as 'mildly entertained' is the best you could hope to obtain in watching the said production.


The only redeeming feature of this movie is Steve Carell. Like John Wayne, I've never seen Steve Carell stretch too far as an actor, but it doesn't matter. He always plays his one role perfectly.

As Marty Feldman once said, comedy must have internal consistency. You can have 4 men on stage sitting in garbage cans, and that's fine, but if you bring a fifth man on stage who isn't in a garbage can, you must then explain to the audience why he is not also in a garbage can.

Why doesn't Evan accept his role as a messenger of God? Why, when he does accept it, is he so profoundly embarrassed by it? Why isn't anyone more impressed with the way that animals follow Evan around (they are explained away by the unthinking doubters as "trained animals" possibly from a circus). There's a terrible flood at the end, and most everyone we see hops on the ark and is saved, but surely thousands of people would have been killed by the flood; there is no post-disaster emotional atmosphere at the end. Instead, most of congress has finally seen the light and is about to prosecute the lone incorrigibly bad congressman for "profiteering".

I gotta admit: I also liked the fish in the aquarium reacting to the presence of Evan.


This certainly isn't a comedy - I don't know what it was marketed that way. As a serious movie, it lacks any sort of substance. Unless you're fresh out of Sunday school or needing your Noah fix, you'll find yourself bored to tears.

The supporting cast took away from what little of the movie was left. Lauren Graham plays an empty housewife with no real depth. His children don't really add anything to the movie. They seem to be around solely to brood about their absent father at the beginning. Jonah Hill plays a creepy internet addict that doesn't come off as humorous.

I found the original to be a decent movie. Disappointed that this one didn't really go anywhere.


The only way I can feel good about having handed over these precious minutes of my life is everyday telling someone how awful it was. And even if I say it once a day, every day for the rest of my life I will not fully get my point across. Just dumb.

There's a difference in movies like this and movies like Elephant or Fat Guy Goes Nutzoid, two of my other least favorite movies. The latter two were terrible, yes, but that was that. Evan Almighty takes a strong cast and attempts to kill them all. Wanda Sykes, Jonah Hill, John Goodman and Steve Carrell...WHY GOD WHY!? All these people have much better talent, now every time I see any of them I will think of this terrible movie.

The only reason I gave this a 2 instead of a 1 was when I saw the movie, there was a mentally challenged elderly woman who thought the barrage of bird poop and getting-hurt-by-tools-while-building jokes were so funny that she didn't stop laughing the entire time, nearly stroking out at several times.


Oh Mr. Carell! How far you've fallen! After a glowing moment in LITTLE MISS SUNSHINE, Steve Carell's choice of films is beginning to contrast starkly with what has come since. Although THE 40 YEAR OLD VIRGIN was entertaining, it was dwarfed by his "Sunshine" character. Hoping to find something that'd get me to spew popcorn from my nose, I decided to rent EVAN ALMIGHTY and see what possible guffaws might await me here. Not much...

Given the trite and clichéd script, the entire film felt forced and unemotional. Poking a bit of fun at flagging family values and the current U.S. administration's take on the environment, Evan Almighty also tries to put a profound biblical moment into humorous terms but fails miserably.

Nearly every person on Earth knows the story of Noah and The Ark. God's wrath was sent down with 30 days and nights of rain which flooded the entire planet while Noah, his family, and two of each of His creatures on Earth rode out the wetness in relative comfort via the gopher wood ark. It was a huge moment in human history (if you believe the biblical text).

So why would God appear to one man and ask him to build an ark that would only carry the world's animals for a few minutes after a dam break? The simple answer is that He never would. Too much emphasis was given to U.S. government policy and not enough on world events, making Evan Almighty a terribly myopic and Ameri-centric film. Although designed as a comedy, it really never reaches anything approaching belly laughs. Maybe a few grunts and a smile, but little else.

John Goodman (CARS) pulls in another forced performance as the despicable Congressman Chuck Long who's only goals are to create development opportunities on protected national land holdings. Even the strong presence of Morgan Freeman (10 ITEMS OF LESS) as God can't help mop up this soaking wet disaster-of-a-film.

The only funny moments are between Carell and the animals, especially as Evan learns what animal magnetism is REALLY like. Birds literally flock to him. Sheep herd around him. Lions take pride in being near him (please forgive the puns).

The special effects were fun to watch but were brief (with good reason). The "flood" was interesting in that the Ark was obviously guided by His hand and shoved in just the right direction.

But other than that you're in for little more than an insult to common sense and intellect.


The creative team behind Evan Almighty really should have been able to make a better film. Starring one of America's favourite funnymen and helmed by Ace Ventura Pet Detective director Tom Shadyac one expects a higher laugh count than the picture provides. Hell even Steve Oedekerk who wrote and directed last years atrocious Barnyard, and attains a writing credit here has done better work. The fact of the matter is that Evan Almighty isn't the worst picture of the Summer season but it might well be the most disappointing. The title and creative team behind the picture suggest this is a sequel of sorts to 2003's Bruce Almighty. That picture had Jim Carrey in the lead, and whilst both Steve Carell and Carrey are both funny guys it's the latter who's better suited to this sort of material. I've heard that Carrey was offered this sequel before anyone else, but the actor declined staing he saw no other places for his character to venture. Thus Shadyac moved over to Carell, who ever since an amusing bit part in the 2003 original has been gunning for stardom. After sleeper hits The 40 Year Old Virgin and Little Miss Sunshine the man has become big business, and so it's him rather than rubber faced Jim who leads this production into theatres. The story see's Evan Baxter (Steve Carell) having been elected as a Congressman and thus he and his troop move house and state so Evan can find success with his job. His wife (Lauren Graham) and three kids have doubts but overall show a supportive side towards Evan, who himself looks at the future with optimistic eyes. However things start to go belly up fairly fast, God (Morgan Freeman) appears to Evan stating a flood is coming and that the politician must build an Ark. Initially ignoring the encounter, Evan is quickly granted some robes a beard that refuses to stay shaved and animals are beginning to appear two by two. Evan then begins to put the boat into construction but the neighbourhood aren't happy and neither is a fellow Politician (John Goodman). Anyone expecting the wacky laughs of some of Tom Shadyac's other films will probably be left completely cold by this movie. Ace Ventura, Liar Liar and hell even Bruce Almighty where largely very funny pictures, but all of those ;projects have one thing in commen and thats Jim Carrey's presence. Shadyac hasn't made a worthwhile film without Carrey at the helm, he's worked with Robin Williams, Eddie Murphy and now Steve Carell, but still only Carrey seems to meld successfully with Shadyac. Carell after the disappointing Box-Office and critical mauling won't be desperate to work with the director again, and with Carrey now doing more serious projects Shadyac had better find a new comic muse fast. Carell himself is fairly dull here, whoever felt that his bit part in the first movie (Despite being quite amusing) deserved a full length feature should be taken out back and shot. I expect after Bruce Almighty's Box-Office draw it was Universal studios themselves, but you know when a quality comedian can't do anything with a character then the scren persona is a dud, and thats exactly the case with Evan Almighty. Lauren Graham isn't any great shakes as Evan's wife nor do any of the children strike the right note. Freeman lets it all hang loose as God in another amusing and chilled performance but he appears to sporadically to carry the piece. Indeed the most consistent source of laughter is Evan's Secretary (Wanda Sykes) and creep co-worker (Jonah Hill), both made me laugh twice as much as any other character in the project. Oedekerk's writing has been worse (Barnyard) but also better (Ace Ventura When Nature Calls) than his work on this production. His script does have genuinely funny moments but it's also full of cloying family moments and the humour is never weird or indeed offensive enough. The film takes tame and easy swipes at religion when it ought to rip the concept to shreds, indeed the opening church sequence in The Simpsons Movie shakes religion harder than Evan Almighty's whole 95 minute run. With a bit more daring and heart this could have been a far better picture. I don't doubt that the core family audience will be mildly entertained by this film, but if they'll be satisfied is a completely different question. There's a line between being watchable and being worthwhile, a line that Evan Almighty is always on the wrong side off. Maybe when you're feeling bored and the films on cable you can afford to watch, but I can think of plenty better ways to spend my time and indeed more importantly my money than tuning into this mediocre comedy.


Evan Almighty continues the mainstream Bruce Almighty franchise, this time with newsman turned freshman Congressman from Buffalo, Evan Baxter (Steve Carell), at it's center. A wholly innocuous (and not even really self-doubting) man, God (Morgan Freeman) decides to enforce some sort of quest upon Baxter, in order to illustrate the importance of... reciprocal kindness, so that Baxter can "change the world" (aka, pay it forward).

Think of Evan Almighty as a wholesome derivative of 'Distinguished Gentlemen.' Baxter is not a con, but his colleague, Congressman Long (John Goodman) wants his unquestioned support on a bill that essentially, is harmful to the environment. And well-meaning Baxter, knowing the importance of networking and visibility, is willing to support him.

In addition, with the new job comes more responsibility, and Baxter is in a sense, vilified, for not spending enough time with his family.

So God, decides to give Evan Baxter some guidance by forcing him to become the modern day Noah. His orders: build an ark. Except, while it may be mildly humorous to see Baxter's transformation to the "weirdo with a beard-o," there doesn't seem to be much point to this whole thing which becomes abundantly clearer when the climax of the film fizzles. (SPOILERS: if none of the population is killed by the "flood", then what was the point of summoning the animals... or at least the ones that obviously weren't from suburban Virginia? or, more importantly, if all Baxter had to realize was that Long's projects faltered in their quality, then why did he have to build an ark?).

So, although a comedy like this needn't be a hysterical laugh-riot, it was certainly one made far less enjoyable as it was crammed with far too many homilies (and not all from Morgan Freeman) and action that seemed intended for a film of more epic events.


Was this supposed to be funny? This is one of those films that just doesn't work. The first one, Bruce Almighty with Jim Carey, had some very funny moments. This one had none.

Steve Carrell, who was brilliant in Bruce Almighty, fails to deliver here. His performance is very ordinary and he can't carry it off like Carey did.

The one good thing about this is I only paid $1.95 to rent it. It's a movie for children...very young children who have only seen about 4 films or so in their short lives.

It's interesting to note that where Jim Carey stars in a film and they make a sequel without him that it's usually a huge turkey. Anyone remember Son of Mask? (IMDB Worst 100 films of all time) Avoid this one movie lovers.


EVAN ALMIGHTY (2007) ** Steve Carell, Morgan Freeman, Lauren Graham, Johnny Simmons, Graham Phillips, Jimmy Bennett, John Goodman, Wanda Sykes, John Michael Higgins, Jonah Hill, Molly Shannon, Ed Helms, (Cameo: Jon Stewart as himself) Strained 'sequel' to "BRUCE ALMIGHTY" with Carell's jerk anchorman Evan Baxter leaving TV to begin his stint as a freshman Congressional rep has his hands full when God (Freeman reprising his holy role; Jim Carrey wisely avoided the 'calling') demands he build an ark like Noah and the hilarity ensues (or should have). The Godforsaken sitcom-y script by Steve Oedekerk, Joel Cohen & Alec Sokolow is absolutely lame and only Carell's amiable persona transcends his vain Evan into something resembling a human being. The end result is a lot of bird poop gags and overall bloat (reportedly costing $175 M for the CGI F/X). Sykes steals the show as Evan's sarcastic assistant. Sacrilegiously unfunny. (Dir: Tom Shadyac)


This film is definitely up there with the worst films I've ever seen, probably in my top 5 of worst films. I laughed once and that was when:

EVAN: "im building something" Evan's Secretary: "i hope its a barber shop"

That was literally the only time i laughed in this 'comedy', awful compared to Bruce almighty which as a big Jim carrey fan...wasn't even that great!

This movie lacked the humour of having God's powers and was more about family bonding. Id class it solely as a family movie, definitely not a family comedy.

Seeing a bird poo on someone's shirt is not hilarious, neither is a beard that grows back instant!

I didn't even think the special effects were great, the animals looked really stuck on, it was like watching a film which hadn't been 'glued' together properly

2/10 film - avoid!


I want to say that I went to this movie with my expectations way too high. I thought it was going to be funny because it's the sequel to Bruce Almighty which was really funny and it stars Steve Carell who is an excellent comedic actor but boy, did it sucked.

The movie is advertised as a sequel but it really has nothing to do with the original since the only people reprising their roles are Morgan Freeman and Steve Carell but Steve's character is completely different, he is no longer the jerk he was in the first one here he is a nice guy. The story is different and the actors are different and it's not funny.

All the actors involved(Steve Carell, Morgan Freeman, Wanda Sykes, John Goodman, Ed Helms and even Jon Stewart in a very crappy cameo) have talent but none of them seems to use it and it looks that there in the movie just for the money.

Now the plot is obviously shaped after Noah's story but there are so many wrong things with it, I don't know where to start. I guess the big problem is that in the everyone around Evan thinks that he is crazy despite all the things that are happening to him, he grows a huge white beard in two days, he gets help from animals from all around the world, he builds a giant arc in a few weeks, in real life people wouldn't be mocking these guy after that, they would be saying he is the new Noah.

Also the special effects are good but what the hell is the greatest movie flood ever filmed doing in Evan Almighty? Did they really had to waste such good special effects as filler for this crappy movie.

Jim Carrey seems to be a smart guy since he has stayed away of three of the worst sequels ever made, Son of the Mask, Dumb and Dumbered and now Evan Almighty.

This was a giant disappointment and Tom Shyadac should be ashamed of himself.


If you're not a fan of the 80s, and you need to be a particularly strong fan, or of one of the two leads, there's nothing about this film to recommend.

The story, as others have said, is dull, almost an afterthought to the basic notion of the characters and the idea of making a slightly manic comedy. I watched it to about an hour, hoping it would turn a corner, a twist would occur or it would somehow kick into gear but no... It's not unwatchable, it's just dull. It goes by. It goes by with bits of running around madly, lingering shots of feet at strange angles, bits of shouting madly but I didn't get a real feel of energy or manic fun, it just came across as forced. Needless to say also, there was nothing to laugh at particularly. A bit of mild amusement here or there but nothing more.

Don't be fooled by the mention of feminism by the way, all it means in this case is that almost all the principal cast is female. If anything, it's actually cloying... Two female leads, fine, excellent, the drug dealer is female, okay, their landlord is a landlady, alright, their friends are female, okay, the only other person we particularly see who lives in the same building, oh, female... I wasn't on the lookout for that but after a while it felt like a conscious decision had been made to have the film cast that way and it felt, again, a bit forced and cloying.

On the plus-side, if you are a fan of 80s fashions and culture, there is plenty to see and if you're a fan of Helen Slater, she's fun and enjoyable to watch. There's also some screen-time for Carol Kane, which is great, but not enough...

Overall: 3/10. If you're a huge fan of the 80s, Helen Slater and Carol Kane, you could maybe stretch it to a 5 because of them, although there's still the fact it's a comedy which isn't funny, which hinders it substantially. If you're not a fan of those things, you might as well make it 0 because there's nothing much else to enjoy here.


I gave this film a 2 mostly because it does actually have an ok cast but the film itself is just so (insert unusually rude word beginning with the sixth letter of the alphabet)-ing pointless that I felt bad that at the time I voted for it its lowest vote was a three.

Very predictable plot....two nare-do-well musicians have no money and plenty of money problems. However when a friend leaves a bag full of money (that belongs to drug dealers) in their care they of course spend it and then the "fun" begins.

Not an original idea in this whole film.


This film was embarrassing in its clichés, poor acting and generally low production values. It starts out badly with the long haired 3 star general calling the hero, Masters, "major" when he is obviously wearing the silver oak leaves of lieutenant colonel. But what was most distressing was the crew of soldiers on Neptune Atoll. How out of touch with any kind of reality can you get? They were all experts on flying a 747 and the scenes of the soldiers digging the ditch were beyond comical.

WARNING: THIS FILM IS DANGEROUS TO YOUR INTELLECTUAL HEALTH! WATCH AT YOUR OWN PERIL!


I should have gone without seeing the movie after reading the review here. I saw the whole movie by fast forwarding and ended in 25 minutes. though its a low budget movie it could have been made better.

The movie starts more like a thriller and in few minutes it tells you that you should switch off immediately. And why was the movie named "crash landing" when it was landed so well in such a bad climate.

Without any acting, all the characters where just moving or doing like kids.

And should not forget to comment on the joker - the main hijacker who would have been more suitable if this movie was a full time comedy.


This movie is so bad it's worth seeing. This movie will have viewers lapsing in and out of a coma within the first 10 minutes. It all started when a bunch of writers came up with the idea of a jetliner being hijacked and a passenger who can fly a small plane has to land the beast. However, they know it's been done before many times so to make it different, let's do it very badly! Major Masters has his name pirated from 80's movie "To Live and Die in L.A." from character played by Willem Dafoe. That saved 10 minutes in writing and production time. The plane is supposed to be a Boieng 747. That plane has a unique silhouette, even in the dark with its characteristic forward hump on the top. Just ask the late Ronald Reagan who lamented this point when them Ruskies shot down KAL 007 in the eighties. Yet when the plane takes off it's clearly not a 747 looks more like a 767. This well researched film also forgets to include the engineer's seat in the cockpit and replaces it with two comfy rumble seats. No need for a flight engineer on this complex plane! Heroine is played by perpetually pouting Gloria Lynn Berg. After tying up the hijacker, despite several bus-loads of people on this jumbo jet, nobody bothers to watch this guy who almost killed all of them. He's just forced to amuse himself.

The crippled plane, leaking fuel from all the hijacking shenanigans won't make it back to Hawaii so Masters will try to land at an Air Force base located on an island. Only the runway's 300 feet too short! Four army guys with little Bobcats (the kind you rent to take all day moving a load of horse manure to the back of your barn), are gonna clear a 200 foot wide and 300 foot long swath through the jungle in 20 minutes! No need for a bulldozer here! Where can you find guys like this? These guys could make a highway between Los Angeles and Las Vegas in 3 hours equipped only with tablespoons, a compass and a duck!

After that hellish obstacle is fixed, Masters will try to land the plane as heroine pouts away. Hijacker giggles to himself and unsupervised gets free to make more trouble. He is finally subdued in a most retarded manner that I can't tell you. But, can YOU say Moby Dick?

There are so many retarded scenes in this movie. The wounded captain is parked prone on the bar on the plane while Masters, who supposedly can barely fly, puts the plane into 60 degree banks and 20,000 feet per minute drops. The pilot should be french kissing the ceiling during these challenging stunts, but doesn't budge an inch.

I think that if they had picked different actors to play the parts, this moving could have been way better. If we need a pouting heroine in the movie, why not pick better known actress Bernadette Peters who seems to be perpetually pouting as well? Besides, she can sing and the busty well aging Peters could feature some gratuitous cleavage shots. Now with the singing angle this could be a Hijacking, Let's Land the Plane Movie MUSICAL! Cast Luciano Pavarotti as the Pilot. They can sing a duet in the cockpit prior to the hijacking and there's no way that tubby tenor would fly up to the ceiling as Masters works his magic on that big bird. In keeping with the musical theme, Masters could then be played by Andrei Bocelli, that Peters Can sing with as he lands the plane. Not only is he totally blind but only knows a couple of words of English. Now that's a plot! Think of the edge of your seat conversation between Masters (Bocelli) and the Air Traffic Controller:

ATC: "Sir, please throttle back to 180, flaps set to 25 degrees. maintain 230 heading"

Bocelli: "What?"

ATC: "Sir, arm spoilers now, confirm brake pressure at 250 psi. Maintain descent at 500 fpm"

Bocelli: "What?"

The hijacker could have been played by the late great Rodney Dangerfield who can spew a plethora of his one liners as he sits tied up and unguarded: "I get no respect. My wife is into group sex. Yeah, she screwed me in front of the judge and jury!" Get the idea?

MISSED OPPORTUNITIES The movie has your standard crying and moaning passengers that are never developed. Woody Allen could have been at the back offering one of his neurotic monologues: "She said I was great in bed. I told her I practice myself a lot..." Now THIS is a movie!

Also, according to similar movie "Executive Decision" where lazy eyed Steven Segal is mercifully killed at the start giving that movie a chance, 747's have massive attics up top. The plane was introduced in 1969 so who knows what has accumulated in almost 40 years up there? My uncle has old clothes, a sled, magazines and all sorts of stuff in his. WOuldn't it have been cool if Masters opened the trap door and saw a teary eyed Chevy Chase in a woman's housecoat watching old Super 8 movies of his childhood? Just a recommendation.

So give it a chance, and as u lapse in and out of consciousness imagine how great this movie could have been if I had my hand in it...


Aghhhhhh! What a disappointment. A perfectly good hunk like Antonio Sabato Jr and nothing but embarrassing drivel coming out of his mouth. I cringed at 95% of the Dialog! It would have been better to have made the character a mute! How Antonio Sabato and Michael Pare could speak those lines without losing control of some bodily function is beyond me! If Michale Pare's character prefaced or ended just one more sentence with the word 'Men' I think I would have thrown the iron through the TV set (I love to multitask - especially to get through bad movies). Must have been a lean year for both of them to sign up for this movie. Washing cars for a living would probably look pretty good to them by now. And the bad guy......if he was so bad why didn't he just shoot all those rich College kids instead of promising toilet breaks. Even the title was a misnomer. A 'Crash Landing' means the plane actually crashes and doesn't just land without even a token fire or anyone being injured. Instead of landing safely the plane should have crashed and burned just like the script.

THIS MOVIE IS A STINKER !


Hilarious!! I would have sworn Ed Wood wrote this. Terrible. I loved every frame. Bad movie aficionado's, this is your trophy! I will watch it again. Words cannot explain how entertaining this movie is. Pare's career must have dipped low, but I really think he's heading in the Leslie Nielson direction. He was perfect for this. Terrible, just terrible!! You'll love it!! Get some friends, lots of beer, and you'll have the time of your life. It's an MST3000 party, waiting to happen. Enjoy!! It is worth the rental!! You like the "Colombo type" cop and the comic relief coroner. The bad guy will have you on the floor laughing. He's also in another Pare movie, Komodo vs Cobra, and he's just as good there. I don't know what the budget was but they'll get it back because this film is destined to be the best unintended comedy of the year.


The idea that anyone could of concocted such a trite, cliché, yet indeliberately comical movie is shocking. The final 20 minutes of this film are comical glory; with six men digging enough trench in 10 minutes to light the runway with gasoline for a 747, while a supposed 'major' perfectly lands the 747 in a 110mph crosswind - leading one to question the misnomer of calling this movie CRASH LANDING...

Some of the dialogue was equivalent to rubbing sandpaper in my ears, while the only aspect that saved this movie for a 1 was the plethora of attractive women filling the screen a large portion of the time. Not exactly a consolidation for this pathetic excuse of a movie, but my mute button finally received a workout.

View at your own risk! 2 out of 10


I can't believe that someone actually paid to have this film made. Stupid, unrealistic, and stereotypical. Right from the take off of the massive 747 the pilot pulled the throttles back to increase speed. then you have 5 armed persons with semi to fully automatic weapons firing without so much as one bullet breaching the walls of the pressurized cabin at 38,000 feet. Then once below in the belly of the plane a stray bullet hits a FUEL line and we see the fuel leaking from the side of the plane. The acting was just horrid and forced. There just didn't seem to be any direction. I have seen some pretty horrid B movies in my lifetime but with the names that were in this film I was extremely disappointed.


My suggestion..... This movie was really intended to be a "comedy",wasn't it?!!!! If not, the producers, directors, actors & "hair stylists" should really choose another career! Now, the guidelines of my submission requires a minimum of "10 lines". How in the world can I add any more to this? Hmm...Let me see. Oh yes, the beginning of the movie was quite hilarious with the "crash landing" scene. Too bad that the plane didn't hit the tanker truck & a bunch of "martians" would have scrambled out from the wreckage (obviously hiding) and decided to take over the "world" planet and make a better movie. Now, that would have been a great beginning!

T


You have to see this. I could not stop laughing about the stupidities I saw in this movie even late after the event. There is maybe a million of individual mistakes and stupidities in this movie. The acting is bad. The story is so predictable and flat. The effects are like 50 years old. The supposed thriller is nowhere. You will not enjoy the movie, but you will laugh at it and enjoy laughing at it a long time after it. We had a great time AFTER the movie. Truly. Me and my friend spent entire 40mins long bus trip home chatting about this movie like we have seen next Oscar winner. Sadly we were talking about all those bad things we had just seen.


I have seen three other movies that are worse than this one, "Plan 9 from Outerspace", "Side Hackers" and the dreaded "Blair Witch Project" There are so many technical errors in this movie that regardless of a decent plot the movie just isn't believable.

Let's start with an AMTRAK train with no skirts or handrails between cars. The killer walks up behind his victim as she moves from car to car and just pushes her off the train.

In one scene a killer sneaks into a woman's apartment. He wants to sneak up on the woman to kill her, so what does he do? He turns up her stereo! If I heard my stereo suddenly get louder I'd be concerned. He kills the women by throwing an electric hair curler into the tub. I was amazed to see that an electric hair curler with a five foot cord could be tossed ten feet and remain plugged in. Plus the apartment looked modern enough to have ground fault outlets in the bathroom and the victim was still electrocuted.

The Boeing 747 is one of the most well known commercial airliners on the planet so this part really amazed me. First the cockpit was not even close to a real 747 and second it wasn't on the top deck of the plane. I watched in utter amazement as the pilot and co-pilot (Where was the flight engineer?) walked right past the spiral staircase and headed forward toward's the nose of the airplane.

I was also amazed that bullets wouldn't penetrate an aluminum serving cart (good thing for our hero), or bathroom doors, but would penetrate the ceiling causing a fuel leak that exited through a small hole in the fuselage. Huh? Watching three guys lengthen a runway by 100 yards in less than a week was pretty amazing as well.

I didn't check, was this a movie of the week or something? It was terrible.


Maybe this movie was actually intended to be satire like 'Airplane' but it failed at that as miserably as it failed at being a 'thriller'. I don't understand why they couldn't have paid an actual pilot a couple hundred bucks for a little technical advice. Hell, I would have done it for free! This magical aircraft managed to morph from a 757 to a 767 to a 747 in an hour and the power levers worked backward. And the dialog sounds like it came out the back end of a kid's game of 'telephone' where everyone spoke different languages. I actually rewound the TIVO and watched some of it a second time to see if it was really as bad as I thought at first. It was.


I would have given this film a one star vote had it not been for the laughs I got out of it. Some of the dialogs were just plain so lame that they make you laugh!! How could some one have actually talked like this. Not to mention the fact that the bodyguard Majors (Antonio Sabato Jr.) flew a 747 like a pro and Michael Pare's team of whiners were able to dig a trench filled with gasoline and blow up a huge boulder in the nick of time. Did anyone notice the lame tribute to "Fantasy Island" with the guy saying "Boss, the plane!!" to Michael Pare just as the 747 comes in sight.

The only saving grace were the cute girls and even cuter female hijackers. Not to mention that the main hijacker deserved to die the lame death that he did for being such a joker!! Imagine escaping from being tied up just to shot by a "crossbow". Hello.

The poor pilot probably died in the plane while everyone was eating steak and having rum!! Just for laughs, they should make a sequel to show us how they all spend the night in the midst of a Category 3 hurricane on Neptune Atoll. Did I hear Michael Pare calling it the "best honeymoon resort in the Pacific." Now that would make an interesting movie!!


The plane is a 747 Jumbo. The cockpit is located on the upper deck on a 747. In the movie the pilots do not climb the stairs in the 1st Class cabin to reach the cockpit. They walk to the front of the 1st Class cabin and through doors into the cockpit. What a gaff !!! The front of the first class cabin has a cloakroom for jackets and a TV screen. Beyond that is the radar dome. Before takeoff a 747 is shown to commence the taxi to the runway. On take-off the plane is shown to have only two engines. Areal 747 has four engines. Who was in charge of continuity on this movie ? During the early part of the flight the front of the plane suddenly includes toilets - another farcical gaff !!! After that the front of the plane becomes the rear and vice-versa. At this point I stopped watching. Absolute rubbish!!!


As a massive fan of DM, it goes without saying that I have seen this film numerous times. However, I watch it purely for the concert footage...the rest of the film is, um, pretty dreadful, sad to say.

Famed rock music film director DA Pennebaker followed Mode around on their late 80s Music For The Masses tour, which promoted the superb album of the same name. The title 101 derives mostly from the fact that the concert material included is from the 101st and final concert of the tour at the Pasadena Bowl, but is also a reference to the movie being a 'beginners course' on the band and how it ticks ie Depeche Mode 101. Amidst footage of the quartet playing live and exploring America is a second story thread covering a group of DM fans who've won a competition to meet the band, go on the tour in their own coach bus and attend the finale gig.

Now, as I said above, the concert footage is great. Mode are here on top of their form as stadium rock gods, which was a somewhat unusual achievement for an electrorock band back in the late 80s. Though the film catches the band before they recorded their 1990 masterpiece "Violator", there are still countless excellent tracks seen and heard here eg Behind The Wheel, the majestic Never Let Me Down Again, Everything Counts, Just Can't Get Enough from the Vince Clarke years, Shake The Disease and many more.

When Mode are onstage, they are brilliant. When they are not, they're, well, very boring. Nothing even vaguely of interest happens to the lads as they check out the US in the dying days of the Reagan administration. As an example, the probable "highlight" of the material is a visit to a country music store to buy cassettes. Not exactly thrilling stuff. I know all bands don't have to be wild and reckless idiots, but these guys make the Mormon Tabernacle Choir look like Rammstein.

The only real excitement comes from various clips centring on the band's lead singer Dave Gahan. Gahan comes across in 101 as being mildly psychotic, talking about a violent power inside himself he can't control, recalling a bizarre rage attack involving a taxi driver and so on. There's one point in the film where he throws a prima donna tantrum at some poor guy backstage - truly embarrassing. The man clearly had issues back then, which thankfully have been resolved. Songwriter Martin Gore and keyboardist Andy Fletcher are presented as very articulate, clearly massively talented, but also utterly colourless men; while the somewhat enigmatic fourth member Alan Wilder is the only one of the quartet who pulls off the rock star persona with any sort of aplomb.

And as for the 'fan tour' thread, well it's unwatchable dross. Let's not kid ourselves. Maybe it's just because it's all so *very* late 80s, but the gaggle of young devotees do little for me but raise a feeling of irritation. They are, to a person, singularly shallow and vapid people, whose antics are banal when they aren't hide-your-face cringeworthy. Let me reiterate....*nothing* happens in the footage that isn't onstage that is of any interest. Nothing. Endless scenes of kids spraying their hair, arguing pointlessly, changing their clothes, getting lost in cities on the way to gigs and finding their partners in bed with another competition winner makes me wonder just one thing - if Cure fans were this mind bendingly dull back in '88/89. The love the youngsters have for the band is something I can definitely relate to, and is at times infectiously joyous, but if what we see was the most interesting stuff out of what was filmed of them, then I'd hate to see the outtakes.

But the music is all that matters, and in this regard 101 excels. The Pasadena concert, one of their all time best gigs, makes the film worth seeing. The recent DVD edition of the movie comes with a bonus disc containing what remains of the unedited concert footage (a good 80% of the performance), and thus makes the DVD an absolute must for fans. The audio commentary by the band (minus Wilder, who left Mode in the mid-90s) on the first disc is also, oddly, far more interesting than the film itself.

As a document of the boys from Basildon during their amphitheatre idol period, Depeche Mode 101 is invaluable. But if you're looking for excitement, you're better off getting the accompanying double live album (now available in Super Audio CD format).


[WARNING: Some spoilers included, though it is a documentary.]

I bought this documentary because I like the work of the directors D.A. Pennebaker and Chris Hegedus, which includes MOON OVER Broadway, STARTUP.COM and THE WAR ROOM., all terrific documentaries I would highly recommend. Watching this ultimately boring and uninsightful account from Depeche Mode's 1988 tour, I realized they had nothing to work with when they went to edit this film together. The band members were certainly less than forthcoming on-camera; hence, undoubtedly, the contest to add fans on a one-week bus trip was added to liven things up a bit. Really, now, I mean, c'mon. Who thought a concert film of a synth-pop band with three keyboardists and a singer would be a good idea? Granted, I like Depeche Mode's music, and Martin Gore writes good melodies, but seeing them in concert never seemed like it would be interesting, and this movie is proof positive. Unless you are a HUGE fan of Depeche Mode, stay away from this documentary....it's a complete waste of time.


This is without a doubt the WORST sequel I have ever seen, & I've seen plenty of them to make that conclusion. The plot is simply ridiculous. I can catch a ball & run around a field, too. Why can't I play in the Superbowl? Yes I know this movie was intended for children, but there are just some plots that even children can realize are totally dumb & unrealistic. The first Air Bud movie was pretty good, but this one was a total crash. Disney is loosing it. If I controlled who won the Razzie Awards, I would give this one a couple. Have a nice day! =)


"Air Bud 2: Golden Receiver" is a very bad rehearse in making a sequel in the course of a single year. The first film was cute, cuddly and charming. The idea of a dog playing on a basketball team is quite far fetched, but he defiantly pulled off enough stunts to save the concept. Even the human story had some explanation to it. Josh's father was killed in a plane crash, so he is sad. And the audience becomes emotionally involved as well.

Now for the poorly made sequel. It is terrible. This is the worst kind of bad sequel, the kind that changes the good ideas and turns them into bad ones. The kind that changes the main plot piece in one way, this time, the K-9 plays football instead of basketball. No madder how much time is spent in mind over matter, benefit of a doubt, walk into with an open mind of an attitude you have with a film like this, there is no positive thinking when it comes to down right bad film making.

The sequel stars Kevin Zegers as Josh, who is in eight grade. He lives with his mother and little sister in a Seattle suburb. In the first film the human story involved him losing his father in a plane accident, which the audience can relate to, most people know what it feels like to lose a close loved one.

In this movie, the emotional plot is a bit more complicated. Josh's mother is dating once again. He and Buddy, his dog who can play basketball, don't like this at all. Why? If I were in his shoes I would love to have an extra parent in my life, especially one this nice. The man's name is Patrick Sullivan, and Josh's mother, Jackie, met him became he is a local veterinarian for Buddy.

The animal story is too simple. Josh is influenced by his best friend to try out for the school football team, the Timber Wolves. The team itself looks like something from America's Funniest Home Videos, the can even catch a ball without tripping or plummeting into each other. So when Bud shows up one day, he proves he can play as a receiver for them, and is no doubt the team's best player.

Buddy's extremely cute in his football costume. Oh, he is enough to melt the heart. The dog is the best in this movie as well. Too bad there wasn't enough stunts done by him to draw attention away from the fact that no one ever asks any questions about a dog playing off a school football team.

There is a very bad sub-plot about Russian circus workers that like stealing amazing animals, of course they try to catch Buddy. But their dim minds are ruled over by the animals and end up doing what looks like a "Home Alone" scenario to them.

"Air Bud 2: Golden Receiver" is much more goofy than the first too. The Russian kidnappers add a bunch of lamebrain slapstick that, I have to admit made me laugh, at the stupidity of it all. There are way too many sequences that detail a screwball nature and too few scenes that depict the true reason why people will see this movie-to see a dog play football.

The performances were also quite the embarrassment. I liked Gregory Harrison and Robert Costanzo's presentations, but the overall acting grade would be equivalent to a D+. Kevin Zegers and Cynthia Stevenson were absolutely pathetic.

There were a few hilarious moments near the end by a couple of football announcers, but that isn't even worth mentioning. Will children enjoy this movie? Perhaps, but even they will grow weary when the heart felt discussions become too long and deep. They will most certainly complain that the dog didn't get enough screen time in, and loath over the fast changing script, and protest against the boring performances, and argue that this movie is trash in comparison the origami al "Air Bud," as I did.

I suppose that they will think the dog is adorable.


It is amazing what you can see if you wake at 2 am and turn on the telly. I didn't know they showed films like this. I immediately thought of Roger Corman, who reused locations for movies or used other films locations for his own movies.

The makes of this film could just move the camera angles and add some time and they would have an XXX film.

There was no story, just minimum dialog that led to stripping and sex. I bet there wasn't 100 words in the whole film, but there sure was a lot of very large busts and hot lesbian action. There was male/female action too, but it was only about 25% of the movie.

Another interesting thing came to mind in watching this film that may interest those who are buying hi def DVDs. Sony refused to license Betamax to adult film makers and adult films came out on VHS. You can guess what happened to beta max as the adult film industry makes millions of videos. Sony has again refused to license Blu-ray to the adult film industry and they have just signed a deal with Toshiba. You can guess which high def system will disappear.


There's nothing wrong with softcore but this one is pretty clinical - lots of nudity but it's all fake (of course, it's always fake - it's a movie but you know what I mean). There's no sexuality or erotica, it's all random nudity and poor acting of "lust" and sex with each other.

Part of it is of course, your personal preference. These women clearly have some body issues with their piercings, tattoos and silicon - not to mention that overly plastique & leathery look so if that's your thing - great, you get to see all that here.

I don't think anyone's expectations are very high when looking at a movie title such as this but for many people, it would be pretty much like looking at cyborg fembots ... they almost seem real but it's really more creepy.


Whenever I see a video like this, I have to ask myself how it was financed. HBO or Showtime or whatever must pay for the production company to go through the motions -- to hire someone who may or may not actually speak English to get high and hammer out something approaching a plot, to pay strippers with terrifying boob jobs to bounce up and down on grossly waxed dudes' torsos, to find people to design and light sets, to purchase the rights to cheesy techno music, etc. But I have to imagine this has to be a vanity project for whoever's serving as executive producer... He had to have nailed all of those girls, right? And bro's not wrong about the "Spanish looking" girl, but to call the cops "stunning" is awfully generous. In fact, I'd go so far as to call them something much closer to "hideous," or "fugly." Watching these women writhe around -- sometimes *clearly* high on pain killers -- was so far from erotic that my testicles actually ascended inside of my body. Gross.

Why waste time with this when there's so much freely available hardcore porn on the internet? I wonder whether the popularization of internet video will slowly kill the softcore video industry... One can only hope, right?


The Tender Hook, or, Who Killed The Australian Film Industry? Case No. 278. This sorry excuse for a period drama takes a cast and idea with potential  Rose Byrne, Pia Miranda, Hugo Weaving, in a Jazz-era gangster drama  and turns it into a sloppily paced and executed soporific. McHeath (Weaving) is a boxing promoter and gangster and functioning illiterate; for no apparent reason he's given to singing Bob Dylan and Leonard Cohen songs before bouts. How post-modern. How stupid. Anyway. There's a boxer, Art (Matthew Le Nevez), who becomes McHeath's latest protégé, over his unfortunately Aboriginal stablemate Alby (Luke Carroll).

McHeath's flapper moll Iris (Byrne) makes the goo-goo eyes at him. Sexual tension squelches under the surface. Miranda plays Daisy, a friend of Iris's (these flower girls stick together) who keeps turning up in scenes unannounced. They practice dancing together and talk about "hooking up" with guys. In the 1920s. I stopped counting anachronisms after that. There's a subplot involving Japanese beer and a backstory of Broome pearl fishermen. I don't know what it was all about. For some reason that is not exactly (at all) explained, Byrne puts cocaine in Art's lemonade. McHeath thinks he's a drunk and sacks him. Byrne plots and schemes to help him out again. She's a big one for the plotting and scheming. Most of which causes trouble. McHeath's two gunsels, portly Ronnie (John Batchelor) and Russian Donnie (Tyler Coppin), debate bumping off McHeath when he realises their part in one of Iris's schemes, but Ronnie wimps out when he sees McHeath crying. A lot of practically incoherent scenes get in the road of the film finally ending.

Director Jonathan Ogilvie spends a lot of time working with cinematographer Geoffrey Simpson creating some pretty images, but utterly fails to generate a sense of style, which might have compensated for and decorated the wispy, pathetically underpowered script; unfortunately Ogilvie's sense of film grammar, the lack of structuring of the scenes and exposition, is stunningly incompetent. In an early scene, Daisy suddenly appears in the car with the protagonists. How she got there, and indeed who she is, seems to have slipped Ogilvie's mind. There are many more examples of this sloppiness. Where he chases poetic sparseness, he achieves only wan irritation. He gains awkward performances from actors who are normally reliable, badly miscasting Weaving and leaning on Byrne's ability to project a kind of haunted doll-like humanity whilst saddling her with an incomprehensible character.

It might not matter so much if the story had more substantial characters and stronger plotting preferably not stolen from a dozen old noir films and festooned with witlessly sprinkled pop-culture quotes. But it doesn't. It's boring.


In the only act of commonsense they have ever made, the NSW Film & Television Office refused to fund this film. The Producers kicked up a big stink & in a blaze of publicity took their production to Victoria. Apart from the lost work for technicians, NSW were lucky not to have been involved...

The film fails on just about every level. The post modernism fails, the casting fails (what is Rose Byrne's character all about ? which 1 dimensional snarling nasty did Hugo Weaving channel ? what the hell is Pia Miranda's character doing?) and the story is a clichéd mess of contradictions. In fact, the story runs like a dragged out prelude rather than a complete plot line.

It might have had a chance if the "pop culture meets depression" style was better thought out and executed. If the casting was quirkier, if the style was less serious ... if just about everything was different.

Apart from the usual excellence in costume, design & cinematography (like most Australian films), the film is just a total miscue.

At a reported budget in excess of $7m, "The Tender Hook" is a symptom of the malaise of the Australian film industry - the wrong people and the wrong projects are getting funded. Compare this mess with "Noise" (under $2m), or "Cedar Boys" (under $1m) and you get the idea. The tough, interesting films are struggling for funding and the flabby, overblown projects with name casts are getting the bucks.

The funding bodies who invested in this deserve to go the same way as Hugo Weaving's character at the end of the film.


My friends and I have just finished seeing a preview of this new Australian film. Everyone who was in the cinema agreed, what was the point of this film? There was no good story to follow, the characters were undeveloped, and the plot seemed unmotivated. I find it bizarre that this film, that probably cost in the high millions, got funded and made. It serves no purpose to the drama community, its adds nothing to the palette of Australian cinema. It really was a waste of time creating this droll unemotional piece of work and more time really should be spent work-shopping scripts and creating good stories, not creating a mess like this. Hugo Weaving and Rose Byrne were OK but severely hampered by a bad script. Pia Miranda's character was unnecessary and abstract from the plot, and her lines were average at best. A true waste of talent. The saving grace was Geoffrey Simpson ACS' cinematography, which like most Aussie films, was superb.

Come on guys, think about it next time please.

4/10


The movie is about a day in the life of a woman who is going insane. To show that she is mentally ill, she overacts a lot and the narrator tells us she's "going mad". Along the way, she goes out with a fat guy who looks like he could be Orson Welles' brother and he later takes a header off a building in one of the only interesting moments in the movie.

This is a strange little film that is very cheaply made--and it sure shows. The film was shot without sound (probably using 8mm or some other cheap type of film) and had some sound effects and an overbearing narration added later. In fact, the narration was the most obtrusive and unintentionally hilarious I have ever heard and it is said in such a silly and over-the-top manner you'd just have to hear it to believe it. As a result of these cost-cutting actions, it's not surprising that the film is bad, though the idea of trying to make this sort of film was pretty original. Plus, it's VERY hard to make it through the entire film.


Skip all the subjective "this is a great film" reviews and read the IMDB trailer or the back the KINO videobox (which includes both versions of this flick) which I'll paraphrase: "To the tune of sci-fi score by George Antheil, the camera goes on a sleepwalk through B-Movie hell, all photographed by Will Thompson (who did 'Plan 9 from outer space' & 'Maniac')." You don't know whether to laugh AT the film or WITH it. So if you like self-produced B or C-grade noir-wannabe actors and effects with pretensions of surrealism, this could be for you! Otherwise, get a copy of "Screamplay", a modern low-budget expressionist masterpiece.


In spite of its high-minded ambitions, Zurlini's film must be seen as a failure. It's one thing to create a world which draws the viewer into feeling the tedium and angst experienced by the protagonist (which I think is what Zurlini was attempting). It's another thing entirely to make a film that is itself tedious and meaninglessly episodic. Despite beautiful cinematography at a haunting location - and a wonderful score - the film never lures the audience in. Too much is unintentionally funny (the phony sound of dripping water in Drago's quarters, for example, or the silent-movie mugging by some of the actors) or simply confusing (Why exactly does Drago want to leave the fort the first time?) for the film to succeed as a coherent work.


When I first saw this I thought it was a joke. All I could think was "You get the 8MM camera, I'll get my little brother's monster toys, we'll make a movie!" Why would anyone in a modern time like 2001 make a sci-fi movie like this, it looks like it was made in the early 80's. With actors that are as wooden as a cigar store indian, a script that was written by the director's 4-year-old son, a camera that was stolen from a burning pawn shop, poverty-row special effects, and to top it off, a director that thought making this crap would make them famous. The end result wasn't spectacular, complete with scrappy dialogue and continuity. From Venus must have been fun to make and I'm sure everyone involved had a blast with their silly little movie.

A 2 out of 10 for a valiant, hopeless effort.


This has got to be one of the weakest plots in a movie I have ever seen.

However, that is not all that this movie is lacking. This movie has the worst acting, writing, directing, special effects, you name it--it's the worst ever.

I highly advise you to spend your time on worthwhile movies and not waste your time on this garbage.

I do agree with an earlier post that the "women" were definitely men dressed up in drag, and that did give me a laugh, I keep trying to figure out if they were being obvious about it or if they were actually trying to be sexy women.

Anyway, there is not much else in this movie that is worth watching!

To sum it up: horrible acting, horrible script, horrible idea for a movie. An hour and a half of my life I want back RIGHT NOW!!


This movie was just so utterly horrible that I couldn't get through the entire thing without turning it off, it was just that bad! When I was watching it I kept thinking it looked like some really cheap film made back in the 60's or something with those terrible looking special effects, but then I realized that this was just made in 2001.

The dialog and the acting were really very horrible and the plot was almost non-existent. I didn't think anyone would go back to making films that look so cheap and old, I'm not sure if they did that on purpose or if they really didn't have any budget for this movie at all. It really looks like it was shot on someone's camcorder at a local person's house or something. Maybe they thought they were being retro or something but it just comes off looking really cheesy.

I really don't know how anyone could ever actually enjoy watching this.

0 out of 5 *'s.


If you want to see how to ruin a film, study this one very closely. In fact, it is so bad that people should buy it for that reason alone. Especially note how most of the scenes look as if they were knocked up in about 5 minutes. Realism escapes this movie on every level. The overall impression is that someone was given a below average script, wannabe actors, an average director and absolutely no budget whatsoever. With a formula like that, it just had to be doomed.

I rented this once, and I swear I got stupider watching it. If you are a humanitarian, buy this horrible, horrible movie, and burn it-UNWATCHED- as a favor to the world. It has no discernible plot, bad acting, and then tosses in something about evil ugly women just to really cap the whole thing off. I would suggest watching paint dry before this stupid waste of a tape! Seriously. The paint would be better. I wish I could give this negative 10 stars.


To have to actually own up to making such a horrible movie! Actually, I'm more embarrassed that I sat through the whole thing. It looks like an old 80's sci-fi movie complete with super-fake looking "special effects", queer imagery, and very cheesy dialogue. Maybe that's the way they wanted it to look, maybe they think it's cool to do movies in 80's fashion like it will come back in style. Who knows...

If you think the promised eye-candy will save the film, you're in for a disappointment--the so-called "babes" are manish and downright ugly. They can't act at all, I don't understand why they couldn't at least get good looking chicks if they want babes with no talent! But I guess when you're making a film this stupid, you don't get very good choices, hot chicks aren't just lining up to do this kind of pitiful crap!


This movie was SO stupid I couldn't believe what I was seeing as I was watching it, it was like a huge train wreck -- I couldn't look away because it was just SO horribly awful! I can honestly say I've never seen anything this bad in my whole entire life. It was so cheesy and the acting was just so deplorable that I just kept thinking "this just has to be some kind of a joke, right? Nobody would actually make a movie this crappy on purpose, right?" I really hope this is all just a bad joke and these people don't actually expect people to watch this with a straight face, and I really hope the people who were in this movie were doing terrible acting on purpose and don't actually believe that they are good actors?! The drag queens are pretty funny to watch, though, and so are the cheesy special effects straight out of a bad 80's sci-fi movie.

Only watch this if you've already seen every other movie in existence first and there is nothing left to watch at all! I would give this a "0" if it were possible.


Words cannot express how poor this film is.

There is no plot, the acting is appalling, basically the whole film is a joke.

With a running time of 97 minutes, it's about 96 minutes too long.

It might have been OK as a short sketch on a comedy show, but the premise is way too flimsy to work for that amount of time without boredom kicking in.

Avoid this one, go rent a good movie instead!


It's tempting to view this film as a daring avant-garde experiment. I like to think that the director was trying to see if it was possible to take all the conventions of comedy film and produce something that was completely, utterly, entirely unfunny.

The answer, to judge by "From Venus", is a resounding 'Yes'. This may not be the worst film I've ever seen, but my brain seems to have repressed all memory of the others. This horrible flick hovers just on the borderline: bad enough that the thought still causes pain, but not quite so bad that my internal censors have obliterated it from my consciousness.

It's difficult for me to imagine what the director and the cast thought they were doing when they made this, or why they went ahead and released it once they'd made it. I doubt anyone involved with it earned very much, but surely between them they could have got together enough money to buy up all the prints and have them burned.

This is a movie that has nothing whatsoever to recommend it. It's not even enjoyably bad. It's just a non-movie in which nothing interesting happens. I gave serious thought to taking it back and demanding my money back, which is not something I've ever done before.

Don't even think about renting (much less buying!) this horrible non-movie!


This is just the same old crap that is spewed from amateur idiots who have no clue how to make a movie--gee maybe that's why it is a straight-to-video wanna-be movie!

I guess it is my fault for actually spending money to see it (one of the worst decisions I have ever made). What a waste. I usually like B movies, some of them are actually quite good--but this is just too ridiculous and stupid to even be funny.

The losers that made this junk deserve to be put out of business for wasting everyone's time and money making a movie that obviously doesn't even deserve to be on film! These so-called movie makers have absolutely NO talent!

Stupid plot, horrible acting (especially the drag queens--what sicko would actually find that sexy?!), lame writing (if there even was a script--seems like the kinda bull**** someone just made up on the spot)

What is stunning about this movie is its utter lack of anything well-done at all.

How much attention to detail would it take to insure that every frame of a film would be so far below any reasonable standards? I don't think it would be possible to make such a bad movie intentionally, and it is inconceivable that sheer bad luck could produce such consistently awful results.

Anyway, avoid this stink bomb at all costs!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


As you can tell from the other comments, this movie is just about the WORST film ever made. Let me see how many different words I can use to describe it: Boring, Unbearable, Laughable, Lousy, Stupid, Horrible.....

I could go on with such descriptions but you probably get the point.

I would have given this a 0, if possible--bad acting, bad directing, bad production, bad plot.

This was made in 2001 and it looks more like 1965. Very low budget, boring plot, horrible acting, really bad special effects, etc...

I rarely ever see a Sci-Fi film I absolutely think is this bad. I mean this is pure garbage. It has nothing going for it either. As far as a "B-movie" this is the very bottom of the lot.

I think I would be more entertained by staring at a blank piece of paper for 90 minutes. Junk like this gives good low-budget "B" movies a bad name. This makes Ed Wood movies look good.

The thing about watching direct-to-video movies is, just when you think you've seen the worst, you see something even worse!

DJ Perry is a horrible actor and has no individual characteristics that make him stand out.

Avoid this waste at all costs! Oh the humanity!


This is without a doubt the STUPIDEST movie of all time.

I don't know who I'm angrier at--the idiots who made this or my video store for actually carrying this piece of crap!!

I can't even begin to name all of the things wrong with this horrible wanna-be movie.

All of the dialogue sounds like it was made up on the spot, and the acting is the worst I have ever seen in any movie-EVER!!

There is nothing about the script that would appeal to any decent person, in fact I don't think they even had a script, they just made up everything as they went along--and you can tell.

The "women" (i.e. men dressed up in drag trying to look like women) in the costumes looked so ridiculous, I guess they were trying to be sexy but--NOT SO MUCH!! Especially that old woman-disgusting.

There is nothing scary about this movie, the only thing scary is that somebody else might actually rent it and have to watch it.

No brain required for watching this, you must be a total loser to want to see this movie.

Don't forget-- I WARNED YOU!!!


I let a friend talk me into viewing this movie, and all I can say is--I want to kill that friend.

That is an hour and a half of my life I will never get back and I will forever regret it.

If you've also had the bad luck of seeing this movie you will agree with me that this is absolutely the worst movie ever made, EVER!

If you've never seen this movie and are thinking of seeing it-- let me save you a waste of time and warn you: DO NOT WATCH THIS MOVIE, IT SUCKS!!!!

Everything in this movie fails, the attempt at comedy and sexiness--it just comes off as stupid, trashy and disgusting. Try having women in the movie who are actually attractive and sexy and not fat, ugly and gross to look at!!

The acting is laughable as is the writing. Obviously, this was made by total amateurs, I can't believe these people were allowed to make such a stupid movie, isn't there a law against that? There should be.

There are a whole slew of good "b" movies if you are into that sort of thing, but do not waste you time on this crappy wanna-be movie.

PEACE


I had the terrible misfortune of having to view this "b-movie" in it's entirety.

All I have to say is--- save your time and money!!! This has got to be the worst b-movie of all time, it shouldn't even be called a b-movie, more like an f-movie! Because it fails in all aspects that make a good movie: the story is not interesting at all, all of the actors are paper-thin and not at all believable, it has bad direction and the action sequences are so fake it's almost funny.......almost.

The movie is just packed full of crappy one-liners that no respectable person could find amusing in the least little bit.

This movie is supposed to be geared towards men, but all the women in it are SO utterly unattractive, especially that old wrinkled thing that comes in towards the end. They try to appear sexy in those weird, horrible costumes and they fail miserably!!!

Even some of the most ridiculous b-movies will still give you some laughs, but this is just too painful to watch!!


This was a very disappointing movie. I would definitely call this the worst movie of all time.

The acting and writing were poor. And the jokes were not funny.

I don't see why on earth this piece of crap was even made. I'm not a picky person and I can enjoy stupid things but this is just way too stupid and just plain awful.

Avoid this wretched piece of garbage at all costs!


No movie I've ever seen before has even come close to being as boring and stupid as this hunk of junk. And I have always been a big B-movie fan. After viewing this total piece of crap, though I can honestly say that this doesn't even come close to being a B-movie.

No one in this movie could act if their life depended on it. The script is so stupid I don't think I've ever heard anyone talk like this in my life. The writer should go spend a few years studying real-life people to see just how they act and talk, even then they would not be able to make a watchable movie because it is so obvious that no one involved in this movie has any talent driving them at all.

I could make a better movie with a digital camera and some monster toys. Also, forget about any sexy scenes, the women in the leather outfits are so grotesque, you would sooner puke than get turned on!

Avoid this pointless drivel unless you want to be bored out of your mind!


Watching this movie really surprised me. I have never found myself to stop watching a movie in its entirety because 3 dollars to rent a movie is a good amount of money and darn it, I should at least watch the whole thing and get my moneys worth. I made it through about 30 minutes of this absolutely crappy movie when I thought to myself, I am now a little more dumber after watching this movie. I can't believe that the director and actors in this movie actually had that low of respect for themselves to allow this to be released!

There's nothing I can say that hasn't been said by the other reviewers, but even in the worst of films there are usually one or two decent performances...not in this piece of pathetic garbage. I've seen better acting in high school plays. Every, and I mean every 'actor' is bad beyond belief, and what's truly amazing is the uniformity of the badness...gosh, it must have been the director. Where did they get these people?

This is possibly one of the worst horror movies I have ever seen. Although entertaining in places due to its laughable script and even weaker acting, and I use that term very loosely, it is unfortunate that this film was not consigned to B movie hell for all eternity. What could have been a good idea has been ruined by an ultra low budget, poor sound and effects and actors who probably earned their wings in children's television, and poor children's television at that.

Please, STAY AWAY from this movie. Not even worth a minute of your time.


I can tell by the other comments that NOBODY could ever actually enjoy this trifling piece of crap, that's the same way I felt.

The whole time I was watching it I was horrified that anyone could make a movie this stupid! What is the world coming to? I guess it is my fault for sitting through the entire movie (ugh!) but it was like a bad car wreck, I couldn't look away.

If you are a kid under 8 years of age, you might like this movie. Otherwise, stay away from it at all costs. It's the stupidest movie I've ever seen.

Everything's stupid--the story, script, and especially the acting, everything! While watching the movie you'll either turn the TV off and think "how can a movie be so sadly stupid", or keep on watching from curiosity, to see if things can get more stupid than this (they can't).

These movie makers (if you can call them that) need to seriously go back to their day jobs, not one of them has an ounce of talent, and I highly doubt you can make a living churning out such horrible useless garbage that no one in their right minds would ever want to see!

Just drawn out B.S. Don't waste your time.


This was so poor I had to turn it off in the end. I have never watched such a pathetic film. I love B movies and was looking forward to more of the same but was sadly disappointed.

This has the worst acting/plot/direction/writing, etc...... of anything I have ever seen in my life!

My advice to anyone thinking or watching/buying/renting, don't go there!


Oh my god, it just doesn't get any worse than this!!! I always love silly little sci-fi B-movies that are so stupid they are funny and I thought that this would be one of those, but this was just so stupid I found it absolutely deplorable that it was allowed to be released. What were these people thinking? They are obviously not real filmmakers and I really hope that they have gone back to their day jobs after realizing that this is the best they could do! The acting and the not-so special effects were nowhere near the standard of even the lowest budget B-movies. And what is with the men dressed up as women, could they not find any women that wanted to appear in this crappy thing. No, probably not.

I would give this a "0" if possible, it does not even deserve a "1" for awful. Do not waste your time (and especially not your money) on this horrible loser of a non-film!


This is such a crappy movie I have no idea how it got on the shelves, they must have paid the movie store to make them put it there, seriously! The story makes absolutely no sense unless you are on some seriously heavy drugs, you would definitely have to be on something in order to watch this total piece of garbage, so much so that you would not care what was on the TV because you're almost in a coma. The writing sounds like it was done by a 5-year-old and the acting is worse than grade school plays. The hideous special effects they were trying to do look so stupid, what did they spend a whole $5 to make the entire movie, it looks like it! Oh my, that scene with the old woman who has an 80's hairdo and the ugly girls in the rubber suits, me and my friends laughed so hard. Did someone actually think it was a good idea to make this into a movie? I find that hard to believe!


This whole movie is just so terrible it is a complete mess. The story is just so stupid I can't believe somebody actually sat down and wrote about this and thought it would make a good movie! The acting is quite possibly the very worst out of any b-movie ever made. I've seen a lot of sci-fi type b-movies before and some of them are actually pretty good, some of them however-like From Venus-should never have been made.

Some movie makers think that just because they put something together and somehow got it on the shelves of a movie store, that they have accomplished something-that it is good and should be watched by people. This is not always true, and it is definitely not true of From Venus. This film loses on all accounts: horrible acting, stupid plot, very weak special effects, ugliest costumes ever, non-realistic dialogue, bad direction, etc. You can just tell this film only took about $20 to make, and I may be giving it too much credit there! I urge you to stay away from this train wreck of a film for your own good!


That's what me and my friends kept asking each other throughout this entire flick. We couldn't believe how stupid it was! I think somebody shot this on their camcorder at home and snuck it into the movie store and put it on the shelf as a joke to see if anybody would ever pick it up. Well, I guess the joke is on us.

I guess I should have come to this website first and read all of the reviews it has gotten, every single one says this movie is HORRIBLE, STUPID, and on and on. And boy are they right! Although it did provide some pretty good laughs (me and my friends were pretty drunk) because it is so stupid. We just can't believe somebody was dumb enough to make such a crappy movie! I swear this had to be made in the 70's before they had good technology for movies and stuff because every scene looks really crappy, but when I looked on here it said it was made in 2001? What? It sure doesn't look like a movie that would be made today, but I guess that's what you get when you use a camcorder and shoot home movies using strobe lights and really fake looking lasers, and use real life people from your home town instead of actors or even aspiring actors. BTW-some of those chicks (or were they drag queens, we couldn't tell!) were so fugly, even my drunk horny college buddies wouldn't touch them with a 50-foot pole.

So there's absolutely no appeal to this movie at all, bad acting, bad writing, bad directing, bad special effects, bad, bad, bad. Don't waste your time or money on this one, you'll be completely disappointed!


I don't understand how this garbage got on the shelves of the movie store, it's not even a real movie! It was unbelievable, me and a group of friends decided to watch this one night and it was just the stupidest thing any of us had ever seen, I couldn't believe it! We watched the first 15 minutes in utter awe that somebody actually thought of this and then made it into a movie. Are they on crack? My guess is yes, in huge doses. I highly doubt that anyone could ever like this trash. Is this supposed to be sci-fi or comedy or what? I don't thing the idiots who made this even care, they just decided to make a movie about nothing and see how many suckers they could trick into watching it. Well, we put something on film so let's take it to the movie store and see if they actually put it on the shelf--no, no, no. This is not movie-making. The acting is like watching wooden puppets moving around and reading from a book, that's how bad it is. I feel like going to the movie store and complaining and getting my money back, nobody should have to endure this crap. So I am here to warn you--DO NOT RENT THIS MOVIE, it is the dumbest thing you have never seen!


I rented this DVD because I'm a big science fiction fan, but this thing (I won't call it a film, because it was obviously shot very quickly on video) seemed like they made it up as they went along. I'm still not sure what it was about. There's these guys dressed up in some weird S&M outfits, and I guess they're from another planet, anyway, not much makes sense in this low, low, low, budget film. If it was their first film, I'd cut them some slack, but I think it's like their 5th film and it's really REALLY bad.

Very bad acting not one good actor is this movie. This director must have been out of his mind to even work on a horrible film like this. Don't waste your time or money on this DVD please people don't. It is not even worth the .99 cents I paid to rent the DVD. In fact I'm going to tell them the DVD was messed up to get my money back. I don't believe in giving anything at all a bad review but I must here. My advice to anyone involved in this sinking ship--please find another profession to get into. How could you make a rotten movie like this? I would give this negative stars if possible, it's that terrible.


I have always had this morbid curiosity when it comes to notoriously bad and unpopular movies. I also have always enjoyed so-bad-it's-good flicks, you're looking at someone who actually liked recent cheese filled kid flicks like Catwoman and Thunderbirds (2004).

So I watched this, and it turned out that all the critics are right about this one. It's a MAJOR flop, but unlike a lot of flops, it isn't even enjoyable on any level, not even just to make fun of. It's just one boring cringe-fest after another all the way through.

I had been warned. I didn't listen. I am a fool.

Don't be a fool, don't waste time and money on this pile of trash.


The original story had all the ingredients to make a thoroughly gripping Film. But failed miserably in this version as even Cherie Lunghi was a pale imitation of what she was to become - so much so that I suspected that she must turn out to be an accomplice right to the end. Sherlock Holmes was turned into a warrior quite unlike anything every suggested by Sir Arthur Conn Doyle ? In fact it was Doctor Watson who showed what little common sense that was going. The boot blacked midget from the Andoman islands looked as though he could not fight his way out of a paper bag and what the villain was doing taking tea in Baker Street for a denouement was beyond anything that the old Scotland Yard could ever have dreamed up. So consign this TV Film to their Black Museum please.


What was this, a Zucker brothers movie? I don't mind a little humor in my Holmes (I'm a big fan of Billy Wilder's "The Private Life of SH"), but this version of "The Sign of Four" feels like a Grand-Guignol-esque episode of "Murder, She Wrote" (right from the opening credits, that are of the worst possible kind: a montage of scenes from the movie) as directed by Mel Brooks. Ian Richardson is a fine actor, and certainly looks the part (he's a dead ringer to those drawings from The Strand!), but his interpretation of the character is all wrong and overly humorous, from the silly smile he frequently sports (I thought the drug Holmes was into was cocaine, not weed) to his expressions of comical stiffness in the carnival sequences. Not to mention that when he disguises himself as an old man, he is so over the top that despite the fine makeup we instantly recognize him. David Healy is an unmemorable but, given the circumstances, acceptable Watson, and is not too much of a buffoon... at least not more than the rest of characters. Cherie Lunghi (Excalibur) plays Mary Morstan in an exaggerated ingenue fashion straight out of a 1930s vaudeville.

Story-wise, there are some pointless additions (like giving Tonga vampire teeth, an appetite for raw meat and a carnival pit as a place to live, turning him into a reject from Island of Dr. Moreau), and we are even denied the pleasure of discovering the mystery alongside Holmes, as we are well informed of everything way before Holmes finds out. And this is full of tired clichés: not only we get the infamous catchphrase "Elementary, my dear Watson" (which, as any Sherlockian will know, Conan Doyle never ever wrote), but we are exposed to such blatant commonplaces as having Hindi music pop out of nowhere when Holmes goes to see a white guy in Hindi clothes.

Bottom line: In Britain, in the eighties, two rival TV companies attempted to create a long-running series of Sherlock Holmes adaptations, and produced initial TV-movies as potential pilots. One of them starred Ian Richardson, the other starred Jeremy Brett. Thankfully, the one that got its way through multiple episodes was the good one!

3/10. Travesty.


I've seen about a half dozen of the low budget poverty row B westerns that Ken Maynard made in the 1930s, and I am consistently amazed at how poor an actor he was. How did he ever get to be a leading cowboy actor? They say that he could ride pretty well back in the silents, but he doesn't do anything particularly impressive in these later sound films. Still, maybe he got the leads because he was big and could ride.

Phantom Rancher isn't as bad as some of the other Ken Maynard films I've seen, but it still isn't much. Some of the other characters refer to him a couple of times as a "young fella," where it appears to me that he's just as old as the other older actors.

And if that's not silly enough, there's a rather significant script problem in this film. At one point, one of the characters makes a remark about how the phantom had prevented the poisoning of a well, something that hadn't happened yet. Just a couple of minutes later, we then see that particular scene. No, it wasn't a flashback. At first I thought perhaps that when Treeline Films was doing the DVD transfer, they might have reversed two of the reels. But in those days film reels contained approximately 11 minutes of film, and the whole reversal only took about 3 or 4 minutes tops. Everything else was in a logical order. So, it looks like that was a genuine continuity problem in the original film. Maybe that's one reason why Colony Pictures didn't last very long.


This movie earns its 3 for lousy writing, poor technical merit and continuity problems. Some people have given this movie a 10--and perhaps that is okay if you are simply scoring it for its fun factor. However, technically this is an inept movie serial from start to finish--produced by 3rd-rate writers, actors and crew. That really was true of nearly all the serials because they were meant as low-brow entertainment particularly aimed at the kids. And there's nothing wrong with that, but "high art" it ain't!! Spy Smasher earns a lower than average score compared to other serials because it is of even lower quality and has MAJOR continuity problems--even for a serial. It was common for a serial to have a "cliff hanger"--i.e., a moment at the end of the episode that looked as if the good guy dies but miraculously survives when the next episode began. BUT, in this film, it's much hokier and ridiculous. You would literally SEE the hero die in the last episode, but in the next, they re-shot the scene and showed he actually DIDN'T die (even though they clearly showed him buy the farm in the last one)! Again and again in SPY SMASHER he seems to die but in the next episode they show it from a different angle and he somehow avoided death--even if he fell 1500 feet into a river, fell into a buzz saw or whatever.

Watch this movie not for its quality but either for a good laugh or to learn what it was like to go to the movies on Saturday mornings decades ago.


20th Century Fox's ROAD HOUSE 1948) is not only quite a silly noir but is an implausible unmitigated bore of a movie. Full of unconvincing cardboard characters it is blandly written by Edward Chodorov, who also produced, and is surprisingly directed by Jean Negulesco from whom one would expect a great deal more. Miscast is Ida Lupino in the leading role! Lupino, a lady who was capable of exuding about as much sex appeal as a blood orange, is here under the illusion she is Rita Hayworth playing the part of a sexy bar-room Torch Singer. Handsome Cornel Wilde as her lover is as wooden as usual and totally wasted is the talented Celeste Holm who's role is little more than a bit part. Then we have Richard Widmark who has the most ludicrously written part in the picture! When we first see him he is a nice O.K. guy who runs a thriving Road House. Then suddenly - and for reasons that are not sufficiently made clear - he becomes insanely jealous of his manager (Wilde) when the latter tells him that he is about to marry Lupino. You see Widmark wanted to marry her himself but - 1) He never proposed to her - 2) They never had a relationship (they don't even have anything that resembles a love scene together) and - 3)without telling anyone (including Lupino) he has obtained a marriage license. Wow! So how Widmark was to achieve something like wedded bliss with Lupino after such a "courtship" is anybody's quess. Huh? Well, when Widmark goes to pieces over the whole affair so also does the movie I am sorry to say. From here on the Widmark character turns unintentionally comical! His losing his marbles so early in the proceedings is totally implausible and unconvincing. He finally goes over the edge, becomes completely deranged and with a few Tommy Udo sniggers, he laughably goes gunning for poor Cornel Wilde before biting the dust himself.

And if that isn't enough of a mess of a movie for you - the picture is also marred with a constant use of studio sets and indoor exteriors. There's not a single outdoor shot in the entire movie! Added to this - 95% of the film takes place at night.

Besides an interactive press book and a photo gallery the extras also includes a featurette "Widmark & Lupino At Fox". Whatever prompted such a documentary is beyond me! As far as I know they were never before together in a movie at Fox or anywhere else! However this featurette is hosted by such heavy hitter know-alls as Robert Osborne, Eddie Muller, Rudy Belhmer and a few others who amazingly heap praise on this wearisome and cringe - inducing affair. All I can say then it must be me I guess. But "Road House" up to now was a forgotten and buried Noir and as far as I am concerned it should have remained so.

Fox would do better if they issued DVDs of superior and thus far elusive Widmark movies like "Down To The Sea In Ships" (1949) and the colourful "Red Skies Of Montana" (1952).