This movie is soo bad that I've wasted way to much time already talking about it. Soo bad...really... ...BAD... and I'm not even that critical... ..I'm almost ashamed to admit to having seen it... Sandra's few minutes show you how far she's really made it... I mean really anything next to this is really Oscar worthy for her... I suppose the only way for her to look at it is there's no way but up after this one...I suppose she had to start somewhere... but really...soo bad... ...awful really... bad is too good a word for this s**t ....but I don't want to get mean now... but really how can u not after wasting 90 minutes... 90 minutes of my life that I'll never get back... 90 minutes I could have spent doing something better...like sitting on my butt and staring into space..that would have been time better spent... (walks away shaking head)


I LOVE Sandra Bullock-She's one of my all-time favorite actresses-but this is a movie that she should have paid a long time ago to be trash-canned. I realize that it's almost 20 years old-but my dead grandmother can act better than these people did. Beware-it's not even worth the $ 5.50 WalMart rack...You know that when the acting stinks this bad that it's not even worth a couple of bucks-the sound quality is horrendous-there's no closed captioning to even hear the hideous dialog, and it looks as if it were filmed on a $ 1.98 budget. I thought that I'd like to see Sandra in an early role to see how she evolved as an actress-but YIKES is too kind a word to use...


I give it a 2 - I reserve a 1 rating for Guy Ritchie and Woody Allen films. We don't even remember what this movie was about. The only thing we recall is one gunshot scene where the actors drop to the ground, roll to the other side of a hallway or something and then get back up shooting. It was like watching 80-year-olds with 2 broken legs trying to perform the 'stunts'. Also, when the characters were driving in a truck, the engine noise (or radio? can't recall) would vanish entirely when the actors were talking.

And, like others, we bought it because of the Sandra Bullock front cover. very sad, very bad.


I walked into Blockbuster, itchin' to watch some good old fashion action movies. So i browsed around the action section until this movie caught my attention because the cover had in big bold letter SANDRA BULLOCK. An action movie with Sandra Bullock in it and it's rated R!? YAY! Although I will admit i prefer her in a comedy but if this is anything like 'Speed' then i was sold. Sadly Sandra really is not in this movie, her role is minor: "Panicky kidnapped girlfriend" (She is in fifth place on the actors listing for Jeebus shakes!) Apparently this was her first movie role (and after watching this movie, i figured as much) Sandra is the only living human in this movie, everyone else might as well be a Zombie in a B-Horror Flick. This movie deceived me saying Sandra was the lead . . . i fell for it like Biff from 'Back to the Future' when Marty yells "WHAT'S THAT . . .!!!" God, i wish i watched that instead of this.

Sandra is the only bright side of this movie, every time she is on camera it is like she is picking up shock paddles and yelling "CLEAR!" to get this movies going but it flat lines no matter how hard she tries. More on Sandra later . . .

The Movie is dull. Very Dull. Think of the Dullest moment in your life then imagine living through that moment for 110 minutes (for me, it is this movie). This movie even somehow makes Gun Fights and Bullet time effects boring, so boring that Elephant Tranquilizers are put to shame. And this movie's idea of Bullet Time is a close up of an AK in slow motion which mocks you as the caps spitting out of it represent each second of your life as it slowly ticks away. And I knew i was watching a bad movie because i found myself fast forwarding "THROUGH-THE-ACTION!" The plot? . . . there was a plot? Music? . . . even by 80s muck standards is Bad but at least it's the one thing that kept me awake. Acting? Sandra Bullock was good and . . . ummm . . . moving on. Is it any good since it IS rated R? No, unless R stands for Ridicules-snooze-fest.

And it is really 80s Cliché when a movie opens with an overhead view of a city (rocking guitar licks or power ballet) and ends with a gun fight in a grim factory complete with steel walkways and assorted pipes. Both of which this movie satisfies. At least this movie establishes what era it's from which was unnecessary since Sandra's hair was screaming "1980s!!!!" And a movie gets really ham fisted when you watch an assassin stripper kill a nerd in the bathroom and stuff his body in a box, which you respond to sadly saying: "that is probably the most action that poor sap ever got." Another Hammy moment is at the beginning when some-Secret-Agent-Dude caps a crowd of people and apparently this movie thinks people jump into the air and fall to the ground when they die. All that scene needed was the Mario death ditty or maybe Contra sound effects but Nintendo might have sued.

And it is sad when the main action hero of this movie rips off other BETTER movie icons. Before the big gun scene, Da hero is found standing in a boxing ring ('Rocky' anyone?), sporting a leather fedora (not 'Indiana Jones' too) with an ominous spotlights behind him (Terminator the 2nd before owning T-1000) What is really REALLY sad is that people on Youtube or Dailymotion can film better quality videos (with a crappy webcam no less) then this movie. I'm serious, most Rant videos recorded with bad audio and blurry picture are more entertaining then this movie. I cannot even call this movie by it's given name for it's very name bring back horrid memories of watching this cruel and unusual punishment (a freaking violation against human rights!) The only bright speck in this dark abysmal abyss is Sandra's career started taking off thanks to this movie. But oh Sandra . . . why did you have to be in such a nightmare? The paycheck better been worth it. The DVD also graces you with a little back story on Sandra as an extra, seen how she is the only one from this movie who end up being a house hold name. Which explains why this movie uses her name as bait for unsuspecting movie buffs, Crafty little critter.

I don't have much experience with bad films but i know BAD when i see it. I could bounce back from 'Mazes and Monsters' with a good old campy Bruce Willis Comedy. But not even Bruce could cheer me up after this movie. I have yet to see any Ed Wood or Uwe Boll but I think I'm amped for them now. For i can't even fathom a movie worse then . . . "GAG" . . . 'Hangmen' . . .


WAIT until you've watched most of all other films ever released, wait a year, then watch this when you're ready for something with such low production values it that will not challenge anybody's imagination.

I agree that whoever rated this movie as a ten-star production has to be doing it to skew the data. Anything above 8 would be odd.

Nice to see the very young Sandy Bullock in her poofy hair for the short time she was featured, though she overdid the New Yorker accent but other times her southern (Virginia & NC) accent did sneak through. Ancient history for this accomplished actress who has grown so much since this film.

The DVD I rented had two bonus features, a mini-bio section that only featured Sandra's bio - taken verbatim from IMDb. It also had a Trivia Quiz as a bonus - 3 questions. Hope you get them all right!


The DVD version we bought had Sandra Bullock on the cover, but we've discovered it was a picture of her from another movie. Unfortunately, she is in this movie very little. You can, however, see how far she has come.

The one other bright spot in the movie, besides her very small part, were a few of the location scenes, shot in NYC and New Jersey in the 1980s.

The sound is terrible. Sometimes the background noise is so loud that the dialog is difficult to hear. Sometimes the dialog has been redone without any background noises at all, which is disconcerting. For example, sometimes when they are in the car, the noises from the car are too loud, and then suddenly there is absolutely no extra noise at all. The director is fond of close-ups on faces, and then it's clear that the movie has been over-dubbed because the words don't match the lip movements. Through most of the movie, the voices sound like the people are speaking into a tin can.

Background music, when there is music, is distracting instead of adding to the movie.

The direction is laughable. Goofy camera angles and sound effects make the movie look like a joke, especially during times when there is supposed to be tension, like in the middle of gun battles. The writing is terrible. There are some subplots that make no sense, and most of the characters come off looking very stupid because there is no explanation at all to their motivations. The writer/director tries to explain some of the relationships between the men that were together in Vietnam, but none of it makes sense. These top assassins and former soldiers don't seem to be able to see other people's shadows or hear other people moving. The actors go from calm to panic and back to calm again without any warning. It's simply a combination of bad directing and bad writing.

The production values are so bad that at first, we thought we had stumbled on someone's student film that just happened to have Sandra Bullock in it. If you like laughing at really poorly done student films, then this movie is for you. Otherwise, avoid this movie.


I checked this out for free at the library, and I still feel ripped off. Yes, Sandra Bullock is actually in it, but only in five scenes totaling up to barely 5 minutes, and even those are fairly painful to watch. The rest of the movie is so bad that you'll spend most of the time hoping it will end soon, but only if you're one of those people who have to finish a movie once they start it. Everyone else will just turn it off. Don't worry, you aren't going to miss anything. Bullock's lines (assuming that you were tricked into watching this because her name is plastered on the case) are essentially just parroting of other characters lines, like this dialog:

Lisa (Bullock) - "Danny, please tell me what is going on."

Danny - "I don't know."

Lisa - "Whaddaya mean you don't know?"

Danny - "I don't know - it's something to do with my Dad."

Lisa - "Whaddaya mean your Dad?"

Danny - "I don't know - he ****ed up or something."

Lisa - "Why am I here?"

Danny - "I'm sorry Lisa. I don't know."

(moments later) Danny - "Some army buddies of my Dad . . . "

Lisa - "Whaddaya mean army buddies?"

See what I mean?

Bottom line - Just say no.


I saw this one remastered on DVD. It had a big picture of Sandra on it and said "Starring Sandra...." and made it seem like she had a big part in it. Not so. She's barely in it. She does what she can with the script, but that's not much.

The sound was awful. By that I mean things didn't go together. Shots would be fired and the number of shots didn't correspond to the sound. People talking in a car while it's moving and the shot is from outside the windshield but there's no motor noise, road noise, or any other sound. Kind of weird.

Score was awful. It sounded like the same few notes over and over. Dialog really awful.

Acting was awful, I couldn't believe any of it. Fight scenes were like a Batman comic without the "BIFF", and "BAM". They were really lame. The shooting scenes, I mean with firearms, were laughable, literally. I fast-forwarded through a lot of this movie. Even then, it was too long.


I watched 5% of this movie tonight and you may tell me that I need to see the whole movie to understand it, but frankly I don't think so.

What the hell is the story in this movie? I saw a lot of people running around in a factory, shooting at everything around them.

Where to start? Okay..

1) They were shooting around the place as if it was the Terminator or something they were trying to kill. The entire place is made of metal, but not a single bullet sparked on the metallic surfaces.

2) No ricochet. Metal vs metal is bound to cause ricochets, but apparently no one got hit by a stray bullet.

3) Magic bullets? In one scene a bad-guy is standing right in front of a good-guy when another good-guy pops out behind the bad-guy and pumps him full of metal. You see the bullets exit his chest as it explodes in a bloody mist, but the good-guy right in front of him doesn't get hurt at all! 4) After having just splattered a human being all over the wall, the two good-guys tell each other some jokes and they laugh and look like teenagers playing with soft-guns.

5) Sound? At one point the good-guys cut a wire and an alarm goes off (who the hell cuts a wire just to set off an alarm?). The lady screams out "Alarm in sector blah blah" and the bad-guy boss says "Okay.. this.. is.. not.. a.. drill.. blah blah" in a very, very amateur kinda way. Ooh, we're getting ambushed by terrorists, this isn't a drill, but I'm gonna sound like I don't give crap.

6) Focus!! First you see the bad-guys load up on weapons. For some reason the same guy gets the same Uzi twice. Deja vu or loop of scenes? You literally see every single bad-guy receive the same kind of weapon and they lock and load the same way. The weapons dealer pops in the clip and the bad-guy extra no. XX locks and loads. When they started opening fire you HAD to see the barrel flashes. Boooring!! 7) Actors or dummies? One of the presumed good-guys throw down a smoke grenade for some reason and of course the bad-guys are suddenly inside the smoke because they're smoke-blind or something so they don't see it coming. They cough and moan as if it was Anthrax in the grenade. Then a semi-boss bad-guy arrives and he doesn't even cough when he enters the smoke, he just pushes the other bad-guys away and they suddenly realize that the smoke isn't Anthrax anyway.

8) B flick? I think yeah! A guy sliding down a metal pipe wielding a Uzi in his right hand shooting away at someone in his eye height apparently. I'd like to see a guy fire a Uzi with one hand and I'd like to see him go get his hand afterwards. Extra bloody gore mess in a B flick kinda way. Small *pops* and a red hole with a torn shirt indicates that this guy is dead. Though the first bullet hit his heart the good-guy who is a super trained green berets still feel the urge to empty his clip into the dead guy.

9) One of these mentioned trained soldiers jump out from his hide with an empty clip! How stupid can you be!? Always check your clip before facing an unknown amount of enemies! 10) Boring scenes. Like the barrel flash scenes and the lock and load scenes, the movie is filled with time wasting scenes of people running around in an apparently empty building. Cut to the action if you're going for a B flick movie, please.

My two cents on this movie.


I don't know how this DVD made its way into my collection - my wife suggested it was one of these "3 for £20" deals at a high street store. The thing isn't worth 66p, let alone £6.66! Having invested heavily in it, I felt duty-bound to watch it to the end, just to make sure it was equally bad all the way through - and it was.

The dialog was awful, the story line was impenetrable (I still don't understand what the hell was going on, despite having read the synopsis), the camera work was disjointed and hopeless, the acting was wooden (not helped by the dialogue).

In fact there were no redeeming features - no, not even the lovely Sandra Bullock, on whose glittering subsequent career this pile of dross has probably been sold. She should get her agent to buy up all the rights to it and then bury it ASAP.

As a final amusing example of the director's ineptitude, there was a scene where the young lead is conversing with his father's ex-army sidekick while driving. This was the clearest bit of dialogue in the film - no engine noise whatsoever! I look forward to the engine-damping technology eventually making its way across the pond into British cars!


My first warning should have been that this dvd was on sale for $5.00. But since it featured Sandra Bullock, who I generally like, I bought it. My disappointment with the film began almost immediately. The dialogues are slow and stiff. The color is distorted. I kept adjusting the volume to hear the conversations. The acting is amateurish. Even the killing scenes are a failure. Twice, dead people moved their legs. When my cash-deficient daughter offered me a dollar to turn off the movie, I immediately and joyfully complied. This is an amazingly bad movie. Tomorrow I am giving this dvd away at the company white elephant Christmas party.


I broke my own rule buying this movie from the $5.88 bin at Walmart. Basically, if a movie has a big star in it, and you've never heard of it before, it's usually for a reason. Well in the case of this movie, the reason is because it SUCKED! They plaster Sandra Bullock's photo and name all over the cover of the DVD as bait, and it reeled this little fishie right on in. I was thinking of donating the disc to charity, or giving it to the library, but I don't think I would want to subject anyone else in the world to this movie. Worst lines: "What do you mean army buddies?" "What do you mean your dad?"


This film stinks more than limburger cheese! If you find this at a garage sale, LEAVE IT THERE! I love Sandra Bullock and yet HATE THIS MOVIE... Although ashamed, I do own a copy, and the studio has changed the cover to play on the fact that Sandra Bullock is in this at all. They play it up to be "A Sandra Bullock Movie". She only has a small part in the whole movie and she does her best with that, but she is young and had not learned her talent yet. Well everyone has to start somewhere...


The DVD release of this movie hopes you will buy this movie on the name and face of Sandra Bullock. Her picture (from years after this film) basically is the cover art... and the back cover art... and the inside cover art... the same picture. Her name is prominently shown on the front cover, all 4 edges and the disk itself. She is the first name in the list of stars. Her biography is printed inside the case. This film must revolve around her character, right? WRONG! It is her first movie and she plays a minor role. After watching the movie, every role seems like a minor role. The character Dog actually displays some personality. Less than an hour after watching it, I don't even remember the names of many characters.

Maybe if I watched it several more times, I could actually figure out the plot, but I don't think it would be worth the effort.

Oh, wait, I just remembered a funny bit! Shoot-em-up video game fans will get a kick out of the "Doom-cam". Looks just like a first-person shooter game. Hands and gun pointing out in front of the camera.

I am generally not a person to be critical of movies, but this may be the worst movie I have ever seen. I kept expecting some silhouettes to walk across the screen, sit down and start making fun of it.

I'm just glad that the money we spent on this (used) went to charity.


We also found this movie on the discount rack and made the mistake of purchasing it because Sandra Bullock was featured on the cover. The cinematography was terrible and the back of the DVD box told more about the plot than the movie itself. Oh and I love the Uzi cam....NOT.


Found this film in a DVD discount rack for $10. It wasn't worth it. Some of the camera work and dialog look and sound as if it were done by a film student. Sandra's performance was somewhat credible, but the film was predictable and the action was spotty and dragged.

One thing that I will give them, however. Unlike most action films, people in this film actually ran out of ammo and scavanged dead bodies for new weapons and ammunition.


The prior comments are way to generous. This movie is a waste of electricity and plastic. On the other hand, I have had a great deal of fun giving it to friends to watch and describing it beforehand as "beyond belief!" "no words can express how I feel about this" "This movie will move you" As expected, the friends took these nondescript comments as enthusiastic endorsements. They were wrong. The sadistic pleasure I had foisting this on people was well worth the $5 I paid for the movie. On the other hand, one (former) friend says I owe him 90 minutes of his life back. I particularly enjoyed the "gun's eye view" of parts of the movie. Truly awesome in it's absurdity.


Oh boy! Oh boy! On the cover of worn out VHS has a picture of Sandra Bullock and her name written on top. I think only reason they had chance to sell the movie in nineties, was because of Sandra Bullock's name. Bullock's fans don't have to disappoint. Sandra is only thing to watch in this movie and her performance is the only you can call acting. Rest of the movie It's fun to watch in first fifteen minutes because it's bad but after that it's going worse. Much worse. Directing is awful. Acting is awful. Script is awful. Dialog is awful. Action is awful. Music is quite good actually. Typical score for eighties action movies. This movie is so bad that it goes close to anything Andy Sidaris has ever produced. It's so bad that there isn't proper word to describe this poor attempt to be a movie. But still, there was Sandra Bullock. And super cool (sarcasm) Jake LaMotta who tried to be Marlon Brando.

I think they can now bring the film out on DVD. It could be cool! And they should write on the cover: ACADEMY AWARD WINNER SANDRA BULLOCk IN HANGMEN

1 out of 10


Don't worry when looking at the cover of the DVD, Sandra Bullock only appears at most 5 minutes in total in this cult classic. The entertainment value here is very high.

To name but a few of the many highlights that should be paid attention to:

- The doubled evil voices of the chief bad guys - The special gun cam - The weird masks and outfits of the hit killers - The showy ways to catch a bullet and hit the ground - The abundance of bottom-up shots - The spacey scene in which Bullock falls unconscious on the street - The over-cliché Italian mob guy Moe (LaMotta) - The cheap synthesizer background music - The mesmerizing overdone gun fetishism

And last but not least: the super corny fist-fight scenes. Wish there would have been more of those...

Extra point for the successful attempt at making me laugh out loud.


Wow, there are no words to describe how bad this movie truly is. I usually pride myself on being able to enjoy any movie no matter how bad, but this was just too much. I would only suggest watching this movie as a torture device. If you can get past the terrible plot and dialogue by watching it on mute, the even more terrible camera work and shoddy special effects make this movie a real horror. If your thinking about watching this because your a Sandra Bullock fan, don't even bother as she has less than ten minutes of screen time, and her acting is absolutely atrocious. Not to mention the rest of the cast, which could be replaced with baboons who would do a better job, at least then we wouldn't have to listen to the terrible dialogue.


I love this show. I watched every episode last year. I bought the DVDs. And I tune into to watch tonight and I see for some reason you have retooled this great show. And you have taken what made it work and ruined it. You took one of the best aspects of the show away which was the 4 friends. Sam, Sully, Lizzy and Piper. I love the other characters as well, but they are good in small dozes like Derek, Darcy and even Sully. It is like the show lost some of its family and everyone else is trying to hard to fill in. It is overdose. While things are funny in small dozes when you are exposed to it all the time it goes from funny to annoying. I was so looking forward to the return of this show. So please bring back the charm. Even if you could not fit Piper into the show at least bring Lizzy back. But I loved those girls. They brought the fun. The show was about Sam trying to live his business life and handle his personal life and friends as well. That was the charm. And that great dog as well.

I hope the network (FOX) forced the writers to do this and the writers did not willingly do this to the show. I will give the show a couple more episodes before I give up, but tonight's episodes were bad. I made a big deal out of the show returning tonight and had people over and I felt like a fool, because no one was laughing except 2-3 times. I apologized to them and said I don't know what happened. And about 10 minutes into the episode I realized they were not going to show Piper or Lizzy and this was no longer a must see TV comedy.


I am very open minded. I watch all kinds of programs to the end...good or bad...just to give them a chance and learn from the good aspects and bad ones. This show had potential to be good. But my god, what were the writers, casting director, and director thinking? The cast of actors are terrible...with the slightest exception of Meryl (Mimi Rogers), and Darcy (Joy Osmanski) being given occasional good lines with the best execution of the lot.

The rest of the cast kill the show. It is the same story line in every episode. Sam has plans to do something. His boss disrupts these plans by assigning him ridiculous work projects. Then the foolish ways Sam tries to accommodate both in a manner that is primarily stupid and lacks any real intelligent humor. This is EVERY episode. It gets very tiring.

Season 2, they ditch the eye candy. The 2 "hot" girls in the show get written out (yet the brother stays? explain that casting cut to me please). I can see why they wrote them out...they had no substantial role...but they didn't add anyone better to replace them.

The cocky Derek Tricolli character is given a continuous appearance in season 2. His acting (along with everyone else's) resembles many poor sitcoms from the 80's...might have been funny then...but painful now.

the show could have been so much better with a few good writers and some people who had any talent to execute them. This show lacks everything. Production quality is the only good aspect of the show. It is great in that regard...unfortunately the content is painfully sad.

My god. FOX, was there really nothing better to choose from? I'm sticking with shows like "It's always Sunny in Philadelphia" or "30 Rock" for now. The bar should be set by programs like these that actually assume the audience are intelligent and aren't continually drooling on themselves using all their brain power on continuing to breathe.


The first season was great - good mix of the job and the brother and friends at home. it was actually a pretty funny show.

Now it shows up again and the brother and the two hot chicks are gone -- and the whole thing revolves around the airline company. Even the old man who runs the company has gone downhill - way too over the top, where before it was perfect.

That and no more Sarah Mason - one of the best looking girls in Hollywood.

This is what happens when you let some execs get their hands on a show. You can almost see the meeting "the old man is funny, lets focus on him, make him way over the top and make it all about the airline.. it'll be a nutty version of the office!" Anyhow, no hot chicks, no watch.


Fox is pretty lame. They cancel the wrong shows. It's bizarre that they would cancel a well-written program like "Arrested Development" and yet they keep this show and "War at Home". I feel that Fox loved that they broke barriers with the then-edgy "Married with Children", but now it's just getting ridiculous. "The Loop" is a pointless and boring watch, and their edgy jokes just fall flat. In order for edgy comedy to work you have to keep the jokes coming. "Family Guy" and "The Simpons" work because there is a constant flow of jokes. Fox needs to pull their heads out of their rectal cavities and quit letting their relatives write this mediocre tripe. I mean, if you're going to invest money into making something entertaining, make it entertaining. Also, stop using "no-named" actors. It's great to have up-and-comers, but you need to anchor a show with a noted celebrity. Duh, Fox.


Upon a recommendation from a friend and my admiration of Philip Baker Hall I rented the first season disc of the Loop.It's a typical TV comedy with all the clichés that the genre employs with the "wacky" scheming brother (Sully), "ditzy" blonde (Lizzy), token unrequited love interest (Piper), sarcastic Asian helper (Darcy, which reminded me of Arliss, as if ANYone needed to be reminded of THAT show). The plot deals with various bad luck (usually by Sully) that befalls Sam that puts his job at the airplane in jeopardy, only to have him save the day, with 'hilarious hijinks' ensuing in the middle. I didn't descibe a certain episode. I described them ALL to a T. Therein lies the problem as what seems like it might even be passable entertainment at first just gets uselessly stale when watching episodes in a row and growing bored beyond belief at the endless repetition. Sully will do something 'wacky', Mimi Rogers will say something overtly sexual, Russ will tell about his gay son, Darcy will do her impersonation of Sandra Oh on Arliss blah blah blah blah blah. The only positive is the lack of an annoying laugh track. But don't let that fool you into thinking it's any good. Go watch a far better comedy. Arrested Development, Always Sunny in Phillidelphia, two name two off the top of my head. Surprised that this one is still on the air. OH that's right Fox only cancels the good shows, i forgot. Needless to say I don't trust my friend's taste in shows anymore.

My Grade: D+


This movie starts off on the wrong foot and never really gets it going. The first scene shows a Life Flight helicopter landing and just outside the window you can distinctly see mountains in the background. For those of you who might not ever have been to Houston there is no elevation change. The city sits just above sea level and a 5 ft. incline is considered a big hill. To go along with that scenery, any shots outside of the hospital immediately tell the viewer that they are not in Houston. The trees are all missing leaves or are pine trees, neither of which Houston has very much of. Even the hospital itself, on the outside, is very unbelievable. Memorial Hermann Hospital is one of the top hospitals in the United States and sits smack dab in the middle of the Medical District just miles from downtown Houston, yet every outside shot of the hospital makes it appear that the hospital is out in the suburbs or even the countryside.

It is obvious that whoever was in charge of the actual tropical storm part of the movie skimped out because the numerous shots of radar are all wrong. The first radar image in the movie is that of Hurrican Hugo hitting South Carolina. We later see Kris Kristofferson leaving his job and one of his assistants tells him that Alison is moving back south across Houston yet the radar image he shows has Alison clearly moving north off of the Gulf of Mexico into Houston...probably the initial landfall of Alison.

As for the acting, it isn't all that bad. JoBeth Williams, Kris Kristofferson and Rick Schroder all do a decent job considering that this is a straight-to-TV movie. The plot of the story is decent and the fact that it is based on a true story makes it a bit more entertaining. My one problem with the acting is the portrayal of Houstonians with big thick Southern accents...the actors all sound like they are from Birmingham, Alabama and not Houston, Texas.

The movie gets its point across and to the general audience it does exactly what it is meant to: entertain. If you are looking for a factual account of what happened to the city of Houston in June of 2001 then you will be disappointed. One thing to keep in mind before viewing this movie is that it is based solely on the evacuation of Memorial Hermann Hospital and not on Tropical Storm Alison and the impact on Houston metro itself. If you are looking for a factual account of Tropical Storm Alison's impact on Houston metro might I suggest watching The Weather Channel's Storm Stories for Tropical Storm Alison.

*1/2 out of *****


I work at Memorial Hermann Hospital (TMC) and was also working at Texas Children's Hospital, Women's Hospital, and West Houston, during Allison. First the shots of the hospital are sadly suburban. The Texas Medical Center has a daytime population density similar to Wall Street!! There are huge skyscraper professional buildings and hospitals. TCH was the largest Children's Hospital before it doubled in size, TWICE! Methodist, with its 1500 beds is one of the largest hospital in world. The Texas Medical Center skyline is bigger than that of Memphis. Yet, the best pics Hollywood could muster are that of some dinky hospital in the middle of nowhere (besides the real pic of the hospital taken decades ago). Also, they combined several real-life characters and portrayed them all in one (super-nurse). I actually know the Medical Technologist(s) working in the blood bank. Two where actually working at the time but the movie shows only one pregnant MT. There was a pregnant MT, and another MT that took the precious patient antibody rolodex (research "alloantibodies" for more info). I will not mention their names (privacy). There was no nurse in the real life lab scene. Hollywood combined these two techs (most likely to save time and money). In the movie, military helicopters (true) had to transfer the our babies (NICU and PICU) to UTMB all the way to Galveston! Why you may ask, when we have the largest children's hospital just down the street? Because Texas Children's Hospital refused to take them. You read right, they REFUSED!!! Being employed by them, I was ashamed. Needless-to-say, I'm no longer affiliated with that facility. Any other comments would be repetitive to the ones already posted by the people that who actually live here, or lived through the experience.


In the European TV industry, movies like this one are called "stickers". TV stations buy them and air them because when they wanted to buy broadcast rights to, let's say, Titanic, some not-really-blockbusters were a part of the deal.

14 Hours is a story of a hospital, its employees and patients who have to face the worst flood slash storm ever. Unfortunately almost from every scene or shot one can tell that is was a low-budget film.

Newborn babies are very obviously not real, there is no background action and probably the worst thing is the doctor-acting. The actors are not believable in their roles: their lines, when spoken, sound way too memorized, as if this was a read-out camera test.


Without a doubt, the biggest waste of film of the year. This movie is poorly structured, sadistic, cruel and filled with unlikable characters. On top of that, and maybe the worst crime, it's uninteresting and vastly predictable. As soon as Bill Pullman's character doodled on the photo changing the word from "evidence" to "violence," I had the entire plot figured out. There are no surprises and there is no compelling reason to watch this trash. The only redeeming feature for me is that I saw this thing for free on my HDNet cable and didn't waste any money. I would truly be angry if I had paid to see it in a theatre.

Anyone that labels this thing a thriller really needs to get out more. An awful, awful film in every way that matters.


I do not know what today's movie goers expect, but after 68 years of movie watching.. (Well maybe I didn't watch many movies in the first 9 - 10 years, so make that 58 years of movie watching) I expect to be entertained, not bored to tears, assaulted by continuous profanity (every other word) and idiotic scenes of violence that are presented in with no other purpose in mind but to show blood splattering and body parts being mangled. Surveillance is one of those movies that was made by people who have NO imagination, little if any talent, a total inability to tie scenes together and an unreasonable trait of letting a scene go on and on, long after the purpose for it has elapsed. That anyone would ever think that this was a worthwhile movie, when it is nothing more that Hollywood garbage is beyond me. As a combat veteran I have seen violence, blood and gore, in many forms, and movies like We were soldiers is about as violent as a movie can get, but it has redeeming value. Surveillance must have been dreamed up by persons in a drug induced stupor, with no writing ability, no directorial training, no experience in film editing, and a total lack of contact with reality. Just a stupid movie of two serial killers posing as FBI agents, setting up a scenario to kill some stupid foul mouth cops, etc.. A high priced piece of garbage that only an idiot could like...


This must be the worst thriller I have seen in a long long time. The directing, the acting and the adaptation of the story leave what could probably have been a good plot into a meaningless waste of time. Within a few minutes of watching the film it was easy to figure out the whole plot and then there are more obvious clues very early on leaving no mystery. I guessed this within the first few minutes and I kept hoping I was wrong and much to my dismay I was not.

The film starts off with two FBI agents who drive to a remote town to investigate a murderous spree which has left three witnesses, a young girl, a drug addict and a cop. They are interviewed under surveillance cameras separately and each tells their account of the day. Each has something to hide about themselves and the day unfolds as they tell their accounts. This part is probably the saving grace and if developed could have made this film better.

Spoiler: The whole story ends in the FBI agents being the actual killers and the young girl is the only one who has figured this out and so left unhurt by them.

Why do they go through the whole charade of interviewing three witnesses and bonding with the young girl if their idea had been to kill them in the first place? How did they get away with pretending to be FBI agents (when you discover that real FBI agents had been killed and their badges were found on them)? How did they know how to set up and use the surveillance cameras?

Bill Pullman and Julia Ormond are so unconvincing from the beginning to the end. Maybe the idea is to develop their characters for the revelation at the end. Come on, they both look ridiculous, stupid and not sinister in the least. The character of the young girl is also wasted potential. There is no meaning to her actions and no meaning to whom she prefers to bond with in her ordeal. She does not appear distressed, but rather detached which again is not explained.

Awful film on the whole.


Sorry for all you guys that are not family with the Lynches.

My sister in law asked me how you can make just a disturbing movie. I told her that if the daughter and her father would not do these movie, they would have instead to go around and kill and cut people in pieces.

After every Lnych movie I tell myself, again one and a half hour lost of my life. But next time I will check the director's or producers name.

So, you don't want to be angry at yourself and loose time, don't watch it. But if you think that you need to kill someone, watch it, this is probably a better medicine than to spend your whole life in a prison for mentally insane.


The film's executive producer is none other than that messenger of peace thru transcendental meditation, David Lynch, the director's father. I wonder what David's guru, His Holiness Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, would have thought of this production. The hypocrisy here is as repugnant as is the film itself. It's a safe bet that Samuel L. Dieteman, Phoenix serial killer and devotee of recreational violence, would have loved every minute of it.

I doubt if many would fault this film for its cinematic craft; on that level it's quite good. But on a moral level, it's the most disheartening movie I've ever seen.

SPOILER COMING

I guess it's the phoniness of the thing that saddens me the most. Morally-numb Generation Xers learn a craft and a little post-modern aesthetic theory at art school or film school and then get involved in the arts-and-entertainment industry; and here's the result: a film which wallows in human suffering, injustice and carnage, much of which is witnessed by a nine-year old who sees her entire family brutally murdered by a couple of recreational-violence killers who, at the end, ride off into the sunset.

NO MORE SPOILERS COMING

For whom are films like this produced? Narurally, sadists are going to adore this - why wouldn't they? But who else? As I noted above, there's some really good film craft here, but good craft can be applied to any subject matter. Why apply it to stuff like this? Also, the movie is very suspenseful, but that's not because of the graphicness & grossness of the violence; it's suspenseful because it's well-directed & well-acted. I'm sure the ghost of Alfred Hitchcock could explain this much better than I can.

So what has been put before us here? And above all, why?

Yes, our world can be an ugly, dirty, even evil place, but shouldn't we dissent when an "artist" makes it her/his business to rub our faces in it? Or worse still, to stick it in the faces of those nine-year olds who will, one way or another, end up seeing this on home DVD?

I hope that people will see to it that this film is not seen by their kids. Yeah, I know - dream on, bernon...


I must say, when I saw this film at a 6.5 on this site, I figured it was well worth a view. I was sorely disappointed. From nearly the opening scene, it is obvious the two supposed FBI agents are, in fact, the killers. Could they have made it any more obvious? If that is the intended "twist" in this film, that's pretty sad. While Pullman and Ormond are excellent actors, even their talent is no match for a reprehensibly bad script. Pullman adeptly acts the part of a sociopathic killer... and that's the problem. There is no switch from "I'm playing FBI guy!" to "I just killed 12 people and boy, are my arms tired." You can't blame the actors... the story fails in far more ways than one.

From the onset of the film, however, I was certain I was wrong, that no director/writer would ever be so blatantly obvious about a plot "twist." Ormond and Pullman must just be acting strangely in order to divert the viewer's attention from the real killers, I thought... which gave the film's makers far too much credit. I should have followed my instincts and turned off the movie before it even made it past the 15-minute mark.

To Lynch's credit, she did manage to interject many things that make a good film: sex, violence, humor, and well-trained actors. Too bad they were in the wrong configuration. Hopefully Pell James can recover from this role... I found her performance particularly impressive, as the stunning drug addict-turned would-be savior. She should have rewritten the role so the "crack whore" would win.

Those people who have compared this film to Natural Born Killers, take note: Tarantino made the characters of Mickey and Mallory reprehensible, yet sympathetic. The artistry of that film far overpowers the gore, and this is not seen once in Surveillance. Surveillance only wishes it were Natural Born Killers... in fact, it has wet dreams about being even a fraction of what that film was. Folks who haven't seen Surveillance... stick to something with a little more intelligence. Like Camp Rock.


I went to the cinema to watch a preview of this film without knowing anything about it. Recognizing Jennifer Lynch's name and seeing the 18 certificate I realised it might be disturbing. In actuality I found the film a farce. I found myself giggling in disbelief through parts of it. The acting is atrocious- Bill Pullman and his ridiculous twitching face. I do almost pity the actors though as the script offers them no chance of any believable character interaction. After some shocking incident, (there is plenty to "try" and shock the viewer in this film), 2 characters are seen sharing a beer and talking about the weather. Everything was overstated, or thought it was being clever when really it was obvious! The performance from the little girl character named Stephanie was the best thing about the film. Quiet and intense. I really could not recommend this film to anyone. Its violent without point, ridiculous characters, bad acting, bad script and plain silly.


Significant Spoilers!

This is a sick, disturbing movie... just like the sick, twisted director, Jennifer Chambers Lynch who also wrote it. I don't even know why I gave this movie a rating of 2. It is not the fault of the actors for sure. The cast certainly portrayed their roles well. It is the way this movie was written and the way the characters were written which was the benchmark of a truly sick mind.

I do know that I will never, ever watch another movie which has been written or directed by Jennifer Chambers Lynch. She is a sick, twisted, foul-mouthed, foul-thinking deviant. She looks, speaks and sounds like some biker chick with her brain fried on drugs, who spent 20 years doing hard time. You can clearly see what kind of person she is by watching her on the DVD special features section of "Surveillance: The Watched are Watching." You can see and hear her for yourself. She was every bit as bad as I had envisioned from the writing of this movie.

I'm not shocked by bad language, although this director certainly talks like a sailor. This goes far beyond simple bad language; worse than any p0rn film. The level of implied sado-violence and perversion she incorporates into every character she writes are of the genre which is even illegal by p0rn standards. This perverse, disturbing thinking is clearly apparent in her own personality and things she says. Another reviewer found the description I was seeking. This is a snuff film.

Be sure to listen to her narration on the deleted scenes and alternate ending. This director/writer is truly a sick person. I can't believe anyone would put her in charge of a movie, much less pay her for it. You can be assured that I will never, ever watch another movie she has been affiliated with. In the thousands of movies I have watched and collected, there are only a couple directors and writers which have merited this kind of boycott. She is offensive beyond anyone I have ever seen connected with filming a movie before. There have been some bad directors and writers, but none could compare to her sick, twisted mind.

When I saw this movie, which was just one murder rampage after another. Once it got past the hotel murder... then the sick cops shooting at and brutalizing drivers for kicks... the vacation family with the bad parents (who had no business being in the presence of children)... followed by the drug addicts.... the movie then proceeded to the (even more) twisted, deviant serial killers.

As I saw the serial killers reveal themselves, I began to wonder what kind of truly sick mind wrote this movie. Those were my actual thoughts as I watched this movie. I fully intended to find out what writer had such a sick mind... because that writer seriously needs to be committed for long-term psychiatric treatment. To my surprise, it turned out to be the director. When I saw and heard what she had to say on the DVD, I realized my assessment of the writer was right on the nose. On the DVD, she was indeed the sick, twisted person I had envisioned writing such a disturbing film.

While the little girl, (Stephanie) Ryan Simpkins, truly stole the show... I can't believe that her real-life parents would have tolerated this sick, foul-mouthed, director to be anywhere near their daughter.

This movie is disturbing, sick, offensive, twisted and the director-writer needs some serious treatment in a mental facility.

As far as the ending of the movie goes... the alternate ending, should have been the outcome of this horrific ordeal. There was no point and no benefit to the film or the story or the flow of the film by the death of the other character. I'm stunned that any studio actually distributed the movie. The trailer was completely misleading. The only reason the movie got the audience it did was due to the clever wordsmithing and creative depiction on the trailer. That trailer is not representative of the movie you will see.

Other than the child... every character in this movie was a sick, murderous, twisted, perverse, violent sex freak and their characters are mirrored the mind of the writer-director who created them. But if you watch it carefully, even the parents of the vacationing family; the sick cops taking pot shots; the serial killers posing in alternate roles; cops in the station; and even the station dispatcher... every single one of these character roles incorporated a sexually, twisted, violent pervert. I'm not too sure about some of the actors after watching them talk about the filming of the movie and the Canadian town in the Special Features section of the DVD.

This writer-director has such a personal mental deviation that no matter what she writes, every character role contains those same carbon copy stamps. The only character which did not have these deviant tendencies was the child. Watch closely and you will see this in every character. Then listen to the director-writer talk on the DVD Special Features section and you will understand what I'm telling you about her mental state and psychological issues. She wouldn't be tolerated in too many decent homes if she were not from a Hollywood film making family.

Fortunately, Jennifer Chambers Lynch does not have much of a filmography... less than a handful of things. Since she carbon copies those disturbing traits in all of her character roles, I don't think we'll have to see many movies written or directed by her unless her dad, director David Lynch helps her out. I'd recommend staying away from any movie she is involved with... and I'm not too sure her dad's films would be any better.

Do yourself a favor. Avoid anything written or directed by Jennifer Chambers Lynch.


This movie was *good* relatively during the first parts of it.

We have a story, from 3 points of view. So let's find some clues and complete the story.

Oh wait...none of that stuff matters because the FBI guys are the bad guys! Though that was a great twist...it was almost a terrible twist. I immediately downgraded the film from a 7 maybe 8 to 3 based on the last 10-15 minutes of it.

Does anyone else not see why the twist is so bad? Yes, it's a good shock. But it is bad because it has absolutely nothing to do with the preceding hour and twenty minutes. There's no connection to the killers.

The killers are in about all of 5 minutes of this movie (as killers) and the two FBI agents are only in 15 minutes of the previous hour and twenty.

We get it...surveillance...Oh, the Killers are voyeurs. WHICH MAKES NO SENSE, because they were only described in limited terms as just being psychopaths. And the hour and twenty minutes of surveillance we are watching of the 3 stories goes out the window as everyone is dead in 5 minutes.

All of this makes the ending even more ridiculous. Oh, they killed a bunch of FBI agents in the beginning...what FBI agents sleep together? All in the same room. To be found and murdered by amateurs and then impersonated by people who know nothing about being FBI agents? A cop 3 feet away apparently can't hit either one with a standard police issue pistol that can shoot several shots. I hate movies that try to make you feel like this could be real when they make absurd leaps they think we will believe.

The other thing is the movie ends about 10-15 minutes after they are revealed as the killers with a girl standing in the field somewhere...


I am not sure who recommended Surveillance to me, but I think I have an idea: one of the "Fat Guys At the Movies." The person said they were astonished by how great it was and said it was one of the goriest/disturbing movies. (I'm paraphrasing and doing this only by memory, so forgive me if I misquoted.) At any rate, I made the decision to watch it. So I take full blame for my own miscalculation in watching one of the most horrible, predictable and STUPID movies I've ever seen. Strange, I doubt I've ever called a movie "stupid" but that was the first word that came to mind about one-third in and stayed in my mind until the end.

Where to begin? Unbelievable premise and reactions, incredibly brain-dead characters (could blame the writing or the actors, or I'll just blame both) and enormously bad acting. I'd sooner believe Bill Pullman as President of the USA than a FBI agent here. (Of course, there's a reason for that, and I'll partially go into that.) And to top it off, if you can't figure the so-called shocking "twist" in the first 5 minutes, then you must have arrived late to the theatre or came into the room to watch it late. Don't worry, they'll tell you the "twist" every five minutes thereafter.

There's been some serial killer(s) on the loose in the most depressing town in the county, or world. But there's more to the story! Some dumbass and corrupt cops like to blow out tires for their own amusement. Could there possibly be more? Oh, yeah, there's a family, well maybe not, but there are four humans, one boy, one girl and an adult couple. The girl says she sees things with much less conviction than Cole sees dead people in The Sixth Sense. There's gotta be more to this than what I mentioned! That's what makes a movie interesting! Adding as many subplots that may/may not be developed is the way to go! Okay, then I'll continue. We have goofy FBI agents that made me laugh. A pair of giggling druggies who's shocked at first their dealer OD's but then resorts to robbery. A gosh-tooting great-guy cop who must've been put in for comic relief who's always battling an angry/suspicious cop. And finally, (poor, poor) Michael Ironside who didn't just phone his performance in, he barely text it in.

None of these work. They're all told in various forms of presence tense or flashbacks, and believe me, you'll lose all sense of caring after the first of many subplots begin. In addition, the reaction some of these characters are the most shocking of all. I guess I'm referring mostly to the cops, but mainly the girl who did or did not just lose her family and barely blinks.

This stupid, stupid movie stinks. It's barely gory as the person that recommended it said it was, unless his exposure has been limited to Goosebumps stories. And what's with the title? Surveillance? Oh, I get it; it's because it was used in 1/50 subplots just to film interviews. Since that's so random, it might as well been called COP CAR, BULLET or COFFEE. Just stay away from this horrid mess.


This is a snuff movie. I'm shocked it is even considered to be in the IMDb library. And, Bill, Julia, and all other "professional" actors involved should be ashamed to be part of this sick flick. I thought I was going to view a somewhat classic horror film with a creative end that writers like to invent....that usually make no sense when writing a horror film, but as a viewer, we try to rationalize and understand. This ending was not creative. It was sick and has all the earmarks of a snuff movie. I am shocked it was edited to this ending, and more shocked that it will be out for distribution by the end of June 2009. It should not be shown in a theater. It is harmful to innocent minds on many levels....watch the movie, the ending, and you will understand this statement. Plus, included in the plot is a sweet little girl "not yet 9" her character says. She is not in the snuff ending, but she is an integral part of the movie. Why do directors feel they need to shock with a sick flick in order to get recognition? The director is in the wrong line of work if she thinks this is an art film.


After a very scary, crude opening which gives you that creepy "Chainsaw massacre"-feeling, everything falls apart.

SPOILER ALERT: As soon as the two FBI-officers start jabbing, you know they are the real killers. Anyone who have seen enough of these "fooled-ya"-movies can figure this out.

This movie is mader with one thing in mind: To depict brutal murders. Why, then, is not the little girl tortured and murdered as well? Will this be next for us movie-goers? The torture and abuse of children? Whats wrong with you people? Lynch is truly has a disgusting, ugly mind.


This P.of S. was highly recommended to me by two friends that have great

(similar to mine) taste in films and have seen more than anyone I know.

I have no idea what they saw in this movie. Sadistic,cruel and repulsive is fine in an entertaining movie,but this is a windbag effort trying to pass itself off as highbrow lowbrow movie making.Or is it lowbrow highbrow?

The ancient generation gap cliché "no redeeming social value" comes to mind. Bill Pullman is trying,maybe a little to hard,and except for the kid the rest of the acting seems self-conscious and kinda lame.

Save yourself from this and watch a double feature of "In Cold Blood" and "The Hitcher".

As somebody said, this would never have been made if Jennifer Lynch was not the overrated David Lynch's daughter.


If you find the depiction of violent murders and wanton police brutality expressed in a plot less film with glacial pacing entertaining, then you're bound to enjoy Surveillance. This film was garbage for both the mind and spirit. The notion that this is a "thriller" is comical; that would imply some kind of tension and twists. You kept waiting for the story to actually finish "starting". It never rises above a glorification of weak-minded violent criminals and individuals from all walks of life. Picture all of the violence of "No Country for Old Men" without any kind of chase or sympathetic characters. Thrill-killers run amok. The acting is good, mostly, but the script is a pile. Don't bother, and tell your friends to don't bother.


There is a growing trend in the media to vilify and ridicule men. One sees it in television adverts and program plots. Cheaters is a prime example, they could find plenty of female cheaters yet the vast majority shown are men, why? The prime threat to any government's power resides in the male population, they're less likely to abide by authority and are more of a physical combat threat. A way to reduce the threat is to emasculate men in society via the media. Other examples of psychological propaganda are crime dramas full of self righteous cops including big-jawed aggressive women accusing everyone they question trampling their rights and making those men feel like scum. In Australia many top male sports stars have been arrested recently for dubious assaults and drinking charges, another example of the government controlling the male populous by arresting their heroes and asserting dominance. Cheaters, aside from the political machinations is an invasion of privacy and a violation of rights, furthermore most of these women assault the men! If it were round the other way the men would be in jail!! If it were an honest show they would be finding women cheaters, because they don't normally get caught due to the fact that their male lovers are quite happy to get in no strings attached and get out without rocking the boat. Men's mistresses want the men to themselves and want to own and control the men and thus get the men caught anyway.


I'm not bothered by the sleazy hosts, nor am I bothered by the cynical, self-righteous stance the makers of this crap take.

What I AM bothered about is that the vast majority of the episodes are fake. I wouldn't even be surprised if ALL of the episodes were staged. Hence this isn't a reality show but something far worse even than Oprah: garbage television with zero comma zero appeal. Like daily TV soap opera but with more action and fighting and less plot.

The premise would have turned out great - if only it had been executed without cheating the viewer. If only this idea were free of all the legal complications/trappings that would most certainly ensue due to what would happen with real people, and what is eventually aired. Hence the only way to create this """reality show""" was to get some rather desperate actors and make them improvise (and what pitiful and unconvincing improvisation it is most of the time!). Shouldn't this be obvious to anyone who finished grade school? Most reviews I read here don't even mention that any of this is fake, let alone that all of it might be. Wishful thinking or just boundless naivety?

The actors hired in this pathetic show are the kind of bottom-of-the-barrel unemployed actors who are miserably waiting on tables, waiting eagerly for a call from a talk show (or this crap), which is when they finally get a chance to make several hundred bucks. I even recognized one actress (in the role of "cheater") that I saw years earlier in "The Jerry Springer Show". And I only saw 6-7 episodes of "Cheaters". How many more of these loser actors are there that appeared in Springer and "Cheaters" that I don't even know about?

However, to compare "Cheaters" with Springer isn't fair to the latter. The Springer show is not all fake; a bulk of the episodes are unstaged - hence often highly entertaining. There is no value to be found in "Cheaters", unless you're a struggling actor and want to get tips on how NOT to act in front of the camera.

The producers use various (very cheap, transparent) tricks to create the illusion of realness, to give their footage that elusive documentary feel. But it's all in vein. In the end, the more intelligent train-wreck-seeking viewer is left with absolutely squat. "Professional wrestling" has more credibility than this.


I think cheaters needs to be off the air and end the reality show once and for all i don't care what anyone says you can attack me or agree with me but its times like this that the show is just spewing out propaganda and the host of Cheaters Joey Greco is a little bastard who wants to think that showing people on camera is effective and unawares no it just will show disgusting he is also the wiretapping and following of people by "cheaters spy's" is illegal and a federal offense we are living in a police state like the Soviet union and Nazi Germany rolled into one i am happy that there is poor reviews on this trash this needs to end soon or we are going to lose our liberties as a nation no wonder our country is going to hell its because of this and other filth shows i liked the older shows better from the 1950s-1980s i hope you all agree with me on that thank you infowarrior


The show is at least partially Faked (So is not reality, just pretending to be reality), which makes me believe at least anyone without face blurred out is a Fake episode.

Proof in the episode where he pretends to be stabbed There is already camera crew on the boat, before he gets there, can been seen as his boat approaches.

The actors playing "ambulance officers" didn't remove his shirt or expose the wound in anyway so they work on it, which would never happen in reality.

They also parked the ambulance in the car park and did not drive up to the Emergency entrance (Which does not make any sense, unless its fake and they would not be allowed to go there)


First Off, I am a huge fan of Robert Blake, always have been.

This movie came on Movieplex last night 10/13, and the title interested me & of course the star. But after watching it I was left more confused than I was before it started.... There are some good scenes, and I thought they would lead somewhere, but they didn't, it turned out to be an "anti-cop" "anti-buddy" "anti-hippie", pretty much "anti-everything movie", with an extremely confusing plot that also went nowhere.

Robert Blake is great as the lead, well as great as someone could be with this bad movie, I am still a huge fan of Mr. Blake and love his acting even in crap like this...But this drug induced 70's tripe, well... better stay away from this one...And, that ending, what a pisser.


I always wanted to see ELECTRA GLIDE IN BLUE for a very long time. I've always been intrigued by the title, the star and the desert but for some (now pretty clear) reason, this film is never shown on TV or I've happen to miss it if it's ever shown. Well, after watching the DVD, I now know why the movie is rarely shown: it's because it's not that good. In fact, I'd say it's pretty much of a mess.

ELECTRA GLIDE IN BLUE was made by a first time director and it shows. The film is mainly a series of vignettes with absolutely nothing holding it together. More like a collection of short movies haphazardly strung together. The movie can be boiled down to this: intro (murder); cop and girlfriend together; intro credits; cops going to work; crazy guy tells story; cop finds dead body; cop and chief and girlfriend at bar; chase scene; etc. The scenes just don't flow together. They're very distinctively independent from each other and because of this the characterization is weak, borderline amateurish. The scene at the bar with the girlfriend, the scene at the farm with the hippies, the scene with Big John and the Chief yelling at each other were cringe worthy. I almost stopped the film during those (awful) moments.

The film-maker's lack of experience is in evidence throughout the film. The style, like the 1970s, is all over the map. The intro credit scene makes the movie look like a commercial for law enforcement. Then it tries to be a buddy film (Big John and Zipper) then a murder mystery; then a melodramatic love story; etc. A film doesn't have to have one particular style in order to be successful but I'm afraid the style in ELECTRA GLIDE IN BLUE was confused. You can clearly see that the director had no idea what he was doing or where he was going with it.

The film is not a complete disaster. While the content of ELECTRA GLIDE IN BLUE is almost amateurish, the look of it is extremely (and deceptively) professional. The cinematography is stunning. Every frame is worthy of an exhibition at an art gallery. Or, because the first (and last) time director was involved in the music business, worthy of an album cover. The beautiful look of the film gives more credence to the finish product than it really deserves. And thanks to Robert Blake's acting (of a really badly written character), the film maintains a certain level of realism, even though nothing else makes much sense. What's remarkable about the look and composition of the film is that it's been copied and duplicated a million times over. The intro credits reminded me of something like TOP GUN, which was made 13 years later. Scenes of Johnny dressing up, with his clothes on the bed, reminded me of American Gigolo. Strangely enough, ELECTRA GLIDE IN BLUE has a very contemporary feel to it, due to the stunning visuals, even if the story and the philosophy behind it are hopelessly outdated.

So, ELECTRA GLIDE IN BLUE is, on one hand, a remarkably underrated and overlooked film because it obviously influenced a lot of future filmmakers out there when it comes to the look and composition. Very few films can claim to have achieved this and legendary cinematographer Conrad Hall should take full credit. But, on the other hand, EGIB is also deservedly forgotten because the poor characters, confusing story, and muddled direction, none of which are worth of remembering.


"Electra Glide in Blue" is a slow moving B-flick in which Blake plays a desert motorcycle cop who wants to be a homicide detective and becomes embroiled in a murder investigation. A mediocre film at best, "EG in B" features some members of the band Chicago, a whiff of action, some philosophizing, and lots and lots of boring dramatic filler. Not worth the time.


I watched this movie a couple of weeks ago and must say: I was not impressed, not at all. I do side with the other posters when it comes to the fine performances, but some good performances do not make a good movie.

On the discussion board, I found a review by an anonymous poster that captured some of the main points. It says: "'Deed Poll' is a movie that raises many questions but hardly answers even a few; a movie that is disturbing and above every attempt at categorizing; an experiment and a very conventional sexual drama despite some shocking scenes. The brilliant acting of Barbara Kowa and André Schneider, the partly very impressive editing and the good camera work (Steffen Ritter) make up for gross plot holes and some technical slips (especially in sound). However, the boredom the audiences have to deal with for 40 minutes remains." Unfortunately, this is true. I wasn't intrigued by the story at all. The protagonists are cold, ambition-less people. They do a lot of drugs and have a lot of (incestuous) sex. So what? For many times, the direction seemed to be virtually non-existent, not to mention the technical aspect: the poor sound quality was enormously disturbing.

What's the point of the movie? What's the message behind it all? The anonymous reviewer said: "Somehow Biermann failed to make a clear point and so the movie remains hanging in mid-air without a message. Thus the boredom I blame on the movie. The movie is reserved and emotionless, cold, almost neutral and it doesn't take long to see the flaws: for long stretches the characters of Sean and Ivy are not credible (they clearly have difficulties with the English pronunciation), the character of the mute brother is not developed very well. Some moments are very promising though - in the scene where the call boy is skinned (the one and only true love scene) an intensity is reached that one would love to see the whole movie long. As a spectator one has to regret the chances given away." Again, I must agree. I did like the final scene, especially because of the beautifully captured faces of Gianni Meurer and André Schneider, but it was nothing compared to the boredom I had to suffer for the first thirty minutes. (The sex scenes, though, were aesthetically staged and perfectly edited.)

All in all, "Deed Poll" was not my cup of tea - a good, controversial idea wasted -, but it was a interesting to see how a movie can be made with practically no money. Maybe if they had a bigger budget and a more experienced director, this would have become a better movie.


it's hard to make a negative statement here after all this raving about how great deed poll is, how wonderful the actors did and so on and so on. i did not like the film. it's crappy!

there are orgies, they have taboo sex (gay sex, bi sex, oral sex, rape, anal sex, masturbation, brother-sister-sex, brother-brother-sex, sex on drugs, sex without drugs, sex, sex, sex seems to rule their world. i guess the director is desperately in need of a getting laid.) the story is just dirty and shameful. i wonder what made those people get up with this story. and above all: who cares?

the technical stuff didn't satisfy me as well. the sound is poor, so is the editing and the "direction" is absent. the actors are admittedly fine, but guess what! it's their job! their job is to act! no need to jump off your seats if an actor did a decent job. do you applause when a bus driver brings you home safely? see?

i gave it 2/10 because after all this thing had something that i can't put in words. b movie charm? camp fun? nudity? i don't know.


Not even Emeril Lagasse cooking can save this disjointed, overheaded idiotic nonsense, starring emeril lagasse as a TV chef from the food channel,who with help of the crew to try to make the show better, poor plot and stupid script throw this show down the drain, Robert Urich wasted in the poorly supporting role and sadly this was his last one ever(R.I.P.),

This is the worst show of 2001 and it will be on the list of the worst shows of this decade.

I Feel Very Sorry for Emeril Lagasse for making this sitcom, he even said himself it stunk.

It's hard to believe that they are the same producers of designing women that did this mess.

TV Review: 1 Star


I know my summary sounds very harsh, but this film has very limited appeal. The average Joe out there would have a hard time sticking with this film. The entire film consists of animated loggers doing their jobs and dancing on floating logs. This is all done with very splashy and artsy colors and the film might be great to show to patrons in an art museum. However, unless you really love this sort of art or are a Canadian who loves films about your native land, then this is probably going to be next to impossible to finish. I have a rather high tolerance for this sort of thing and even I had to force myself to watch after a couple minutes. I can respect the work that went into it, but it's just not compelling.


We found this movie nearly impossible to watch. With such a super cast, it's a shame that the writing and direction were so awful. The excruciating pace at which the story was told was maddening. The flash-backs were clumsy. The characters were one-dimensional. The heavy-handed metaphors -- the river, the cat -- were repeated way too often.

The movie Nobody's Fool, based on another novel by Russo, was infinitely better, probably because it was more tightly written and directed.

The photography in Empire Falls was lovely. Too bad it wasn't a travelogue.

I read the novel and enjoyed the writing style but had some quibbles with the novel itself. I would give the novel 4 out of 5 stars. Perhaps the screenwriters and director were so awed by the novel's reputation they felt they had to include every darn thing in their movie. This was supposed to be a television movie, guys, not Books on Tape.


I'm relieved the later reviews have turned sour - reading all the positive feedback, I was starting to worry that my understanding of movies (and life) was completely different than everyone else's in the world. Everything in this movie rang false to me...the characters, the dialogue, the manipulative soundtrack, the corny narration, all of it. As each scene unfolded I kept thinking, "People don't act like this." It's relentlessly heavy-handed and maudlin. In a way I think the movie bullies you into liking it, or pretending to like it, because it's Serious and about Real People and confronts Issues. But man, it really did not work for me.


Put simply, this mini-series was terrible. Let me count the ways. 1. Absurd plotting. 2. Over-acting. 3. Scattershot approach to characters. 4. Annoying narration. 5. Inability to create viewer interest.

This film can't even pass the "Soap Opera for Dummies" test. I'm sorry I have not read this award-winning novel, so I am judging it only as a film, but it really stinks. Imagine going to a party where they show you dozens of appetizers. You look at the wide variety and want to taste them, but suddenly they are withdrawn, and you wonder where they went. That's like this film, with way too many characters introduced and never drawn out. There are enough stories and characters in this film to create a 20 episode series, yet we are given less than four hours to digest it all.

There are more facial expressions and reaction shots of Ed Harris than you'll find on 10,000 monkeys. The pace is extraordinarily slow.

Dennis Farina and Helen Hunt are so far over-the-top that their characters are not believable. Joanne Woodward's character is one-dimensional.

The persistent river metaphor becomes trite.

And, probably the most absurd part of the film--the cat. This evil and vengeful cat who follows the hero around to scratch him and his seat covers--well, come on now---it's not even good Stephen King!

Probably the most interesting character in the film, and one who is not drawn well, is John Voss, the disturbed boy whose final act of desperation accounts for the only plot device that works in this film.

Just about everyone in this film is unbelievable.

To sum up, there's little here to inspire. The drama is poor melodrama. It's just a terrible effort.


Wow. What can I say? I was born in 1960. I love bad TV movies. Love them. I get involved. The works. I want to get involved. I'm spending time watching the thing. I watched the emmys last night on TV. How in the infinite world was the Empire Falls (excellent name)TV movie up for any awards? It truly had wonderful talent. Of course. And they tried admirably. But how can ANYONE pretend that was an OK (tv for goodness sakes) screenplay? OK direction? You know, I wish everyone the best. Really. But I thought it was totally mind-bending that Hollywood was placing this very very bad film up for so many honors. Awards? For me it was sort of a wake-up call that Hollywood is such a small insular community. Being cynical is not really my thing. But wow. --xptyngi


Despite the all-star cast, this attempt at epic fails. It comes across as a set of flat cartoon stereotypes strung together by an all too, too clever social commentary.

It's as if with every bit of dialogue and introduction to a new character the writer peeks out and says "Isn't that clever? Am I not smart? Isn't that biting social commentary?" And,sadly, the answer is always "Ummmm...no." Wearying self-absorbing stuff that is more like soap opera (in the worst sense of the term) than a movie...and an obvious attempt at television immortality. Thankfully, it died young. Empire Falls falls flat.


Typically elaborately crafted HBO production with a first-rate cast, a rich small-town atmosphere and some nice narrative vignettes, graced by above average production values.

But, and that's a huge 'but', the various subplots, peopled with some likable, mostly annoying caricatures, are paper-thin and go and and on in dull stretches for over three long hours.

The often silly story veers uneasily between melodrama, without being entertaining enough, and personal drama, without being profound at all.

A shame, because some scenes really shine. Two or three, that is.

4 out of 10 grubby Paul Newmans


Everything that made the original so much fun seems to absent here. This is simply a "run of the mill demons on the loose wrecking havoc" slasher, but without the passion that graced the original.

There's nothing new in the story, in fact it seems like they ignore the first one altogether. Here, the demons run loose in a high security apartment building and, naturally, kill most of the residents in grisly fashion. The makeup effects actually seem less convincing here than the first time around. Although the actors weren't exactly brilliant in Demons, in Demons 2 they're actually a lot worse. You don't care about these characters, AT ALL. The plot is nonexistent, the music poor (apart from one Simon Boswell song), it's not scary in the least; it's just not that good.

Easily the worst film Dario Argento has been involved with and Lamberto Bava's also (Bava has a cameo in this film, not a very funny one).

Maybe 3 is too high a rating, but at least I could watch it all and didn't think of stopping midway. My advice; Stick to the original.


When the word "presents" finds its way into a title, preceded by a famous name, the work is usually immediately dismissible. For some reason, people who are capable of creating good art don't seem to be able to see it in others. However, I've always been willing to give the second installment of the Demons trilogy a try. For one thing, the soundtracks are absolutely to die for. Most American directors would have sacrificed small animals to line up the kind of talent on the soundtrack of Demons 2. For another, well, two words: Asia Argento. (Of course, she was eleven when this film was made, and a number of years away from her seeming decision that she would style her acting after early Helen Mirren: steamy looks and little clothing.) As well, Lamberto Bava comes from one of Italy's finest dynasties in that odd horror sub genre known as Giallo (he's the son of Mario Bava, who may well have invented the genre in the sixties). And the original Demons is an absolute must-see for fans of eighties B-horror films. So how bad can this be, right? Well, bad. The demons continue their assault on Italian media, as the movie opens in a modern Italian high-rise where many people going about their lives have their televisions on in the background. They're all watching a kind of combination news report/mater video of some investigative reporter types trying to get proof of the events of the first film (which would seem to put the time frame of this one no more than a few days after the first film). Through the usual horror-film extra inability to concentrate, the reporters manage to bring a demon back to life, and he comes through the TV screen to start the plague anew.

Yeah. It's that bad. About the only thing good one can say about the film is that the soundtrack (when you're not being buffeted about by the likes of The Smiths, The Cult, Gene Loves Jezebel, etc.) is stunning. It comes from the keyboard of Simon Boswell, who got his start as a part of the Argento Dynasty and has since gone on to score such films as Lord of Illusions and Hackers.

Makes a half-decent free rental if you're planning on drinking heavily, but it's certainly nowhere near the fun the original was. Cronenberg's wonderfully funny high-rise-nasty-creature romp, Shivers (aka They Came From Within), is a whole lot better.


Please, why on Earth did Bava had to add insult to injury making this pathetic piece of follow up crap?

To begin with we, "the viewers" at home are treated to a narration from some unknown ding-bat informing us of the aftermath events of the previous episode indicating mankind's triumph over the demons, (yeah right).

I can tell you "right now" that this doesn't in anyway what-so-ever have anything to do with Demons as this is a completely new story with a different backdrop altogether. Bava as usual, makes a casual appearance that doesn't even seem to fit into the main context of the story at all. Acting in this one beyond appalling and the whole concept about the demons appearing through a TV set, Oh God I'm not going to go on. Go see for yourself.

As usual you'll be treated to laughable dubbing, crap scenarios that don't make any sense and above all un-answered questions. How typical of a sequel that dished out the first batch of crap.

Overall if you're one of those DVD Argentophile collector's, then maybe you'll wanna give this a go otherwise avoid like the plague, it's no way near the first, so you may wanna avoid like the plague.


(Spoilers more than likely... nothing really important you couldn't have figured out yourselves) Yeah, it's really weird. I rented it at a Blockbuster for the reason it had absolutely NO description of the movie on the back of the box, only a list of the bands that had songs in it. But after that, I had a dikens of a time finding it, even here on IMDB. I kept confusing it with "Night of the Demons," but, you know, they're basically the same thing.

The parts I loved most about this movie was the whole thing in the garage. That black gym guy was hilarious the way he screamed ALL the time. Even when screaming wasn't really necessary, he'd let out a "LISTEN UP NOW!! BLOCK THE DOOR WITH CARS!!!!" and so, they'd run cars head on into other cars. But, then he got balls and shafted by a zombie with a broom stick I believe it was. The other part that kinda caught my attention was the part with the crash outside the building with the guys that they girl didn't want to come over... To what significant aspect of the movie did that give us? What was it? Why was it there? Why did the movie end with a guy breaking the TV's in a studio? I saw that there was a zombie running towards the screen, but he was kinda far away. I mean, he could have just turned the TV off. Yes, this movie was shot on a whim and yes, I hated it. Good day...


This film SUCKS!! It looks like they just chose to place scenes together at random. Good gore, but little plot. Sally whines and complains about everything till she becomes a demon. I figured that she had PMS. It sure seemed that way. The dubbing in this film is horrible. One scene the woman was talking and a few seconds before we hear any audio. I knew at that moment my suspicions were correct that it was not from the US. I tried to follow along but got lost about half way through it and found it very hard to believe, even for a horror film. Some good characters, but not many. Not worth wasting one's time.


The films use of blue-black and vibrant skin tones to create a noir-ish feel to this movie unfortunately do not work. In fact its quite irritating as it obscures the demon characters and reduces them to one dimensional beings.

At least the original had an hysterical energy and the gore set-pieces were quite stunning. Black gore is hardly frightening, nor is the main female demon at all frightening in her attempts to snarl and growl at the screen in her best camp Lugosi style.

The narrative is grossly disjointed and if you could imagine 'Naked Lunch' directed by Russ Meyer you may appreciate the attempt to be William Burroughs-esque. Otherwise give this film a wide girth. Bava and Argento fans - once again - are bitterly disappointed.


Saw this last night and being a fan of the first Demons, I had hoped that the sequel would have the same fun, spooky spirit of it's predecessor. This is unfortunately not the case. The set-up is similar as the first, in which a horde of flesh-eating demons burst forth into reality by being released from a horror movie being played... (The first had been a movie theater, this one takes place in an apartment building and on TV.) Once the demons are released, madness and mass carnage ensues. That's pretty much it as far as plot development goes. It worked nicely in the first part because of the ghoulish make-up FX, fast pace and unpredictability. The sequel, however, doesn't cut it. The first problem seems to be that there are way too many characters who we don't really care about one way or another. If they were annoying or idiots, then there would at least be some kind of gratification when they are inevitably butchered/demonized/eaten alive...but these people are just kind of there waiting to be slaughtered. Plus, the fact that most of the characters are in different parts of the apartment building (and out of it), they are constantly cutting back and forth between them, which kept pulling me out of the story. There are some amusing bits, courtesy of the splatter FX and campiness. Such as a constant flow of dripping blood eating through one floor's construction after another as if it were alien acid... The first demon possession of a crabby birthday girl leads to the destruction of her entire party, and a creepy demon child clawing his way into the room of a tenant who is pregnant with child. However, that sequence parlays into a ridiculous-looking rubber demon baby puppet thing that bursts from the chest of the human child that constantly flies across the room at its intended victim. I got a couple of chuckles out of that scene, but I don't think that was Bava's intention. The scene probably would've worked better if they just kept the child demon around to attack the woman, but hey... Other little things like the over-zealous acting of most of the characters and the bad dubbing don't help matters. In summation, I managed to see the unrated version on DVD, and can't imagine having to sit all the way through the previously only available R rated version, because the make-up FX and gore were the only thing I got out of it. Also notable is an early role of producer Argento's future hottie daughter, Asia. In fact, she probably gives the best performance of the whole cast and she's barely on screen. Argento/Bava fan's might want to check it out just to see it, but will probably find themselves looking at their watch, like I did. Gore fans might get a kick out of some of the fx, but will be laughing themselves out of their chairs at the most goofy-looking evil baby puppet since Little Selwyn from Dead/Alive. You could do worse, but it certainly doesn't live up to the original.


Everything about this movie was bad, the acting was bad and the plot was bad. And were is all the blood and gore that was in "Demons" which is a good movie and it was not scary at all. My Brother said that this movie was bad but I had to give it a chance since the first movie was very good. When the movie was over I understand why my brother thought this movie was bad. The only plus in this movie was the music by "The Smiths" and "The Cult", but this is a movie and the music soundtrack is not the most important thing. And I saw that it has been released four sequels after this film, I haven't seen none of them but can they be as awful as this one, I have no plans to see them but maybe I will see them some time.


Before I really slag this film off, I just want to say I absolutely loved it.

Firstly, how many times in the film did the characters use the phrase "You're Right."? I'm sure i was counting in the hundreds before I gave up and started watching the film again.

Secondly, what the hell is with those blue monkey things? OK, so the Dansen family led very private lives and had one brown eye one blue eye, but since when does that transform people into subterranean carnivorous blue zombie-creatures?

and finally, 'Old faithful here will protect me' hahaha :)


I just finished up this unofficial adaptation of H.P. Lovecraft's "The Lurking Fear" that was shot in Louisiana. Outside of a few changes (names, setting), this follows the short story point by point for the first 70 minutes but then tries to inject its own "twist" ending that you could see coming from a mile away. Either way, it is a much better adaptation than Full Moon's THE LURKING FEAR. Too bad it is a terrible film. Director David McCormick shoots the thing with all the flair of an industrial short. I swear I counted maybe two camera movements. The creature design is cheap (we're talking store bought masks here) but shot in a dark manner (intentional or not) where they are somewhat creepy. The most impressive thing in the picture is the abandoned mansion but McCormick fails to exploit that as well. File this one under good adaptation, poor execution.


This is probably the worst film I have ever seen; it makes Plan 9 from Outer Space look wonderful. The acting is wooden, the plot silly and the SFX non-existent. The only good thing about it is the fact that it is not a long film. The scenery is sometimes quite pretty, assuming you like trees, if that helps any!


The girls might be prettier if you're their accompanist or a $#!+-faced onlooker. What I'm sayin' is that it'll take special circumstances for a non-whince reaction to this effort. The delivery of many lines appears to be distractingly unnatural for some actors. Lighting seems to be a problem, too, although failing eyesight may have accounted for my frequent squinting. And if you view this film, be open-minded enough to accept elements that no zoo or circus would reject: They are the above and below-ground creatures who feasted on dozens of campers near an empty Louisiana mansion. That's the discovery of a trio who is dispatched from their printed media to investigate the deaths. Then, two of THEM disappear, and the survivor is part of another threesome who take up the hunt. Eureka! I just realized what one of those aforementioned "special circumstances" would be - unconsciousness.


I saw this film before two weeks. It's kitsch, boring and totally unintelligible for people, that haven't read the original book. There are many fact mistakes too... actors plays rather poor, you must laugh even in the sad moments. It was a totally waste of time.


I don't really know why so many persons love this movie: maybe it's funny, OK, but it has totally ruined one of the best novels ever written. As the author himself said, this movie has betrayed the book: not only the story is violently cut to about 1/3, but all the symbols, all the complexity, everything is lost in a very 80's-fashioned fantasy/adventure film for kids. Today we have effects, directors, a new attention to books: I hope that someone (Tim Burton, Peter Jackson, Hayao Miyazaki...) someday will direct the REAL Neverending story. A great dead writer, a wonderful book and many literature lovers deserve it.


Way back at the dawn of human civilization cavemen sat around and made lame jokes, hit each other over the heads with what ever they could grab, and women were never seen and apparently at one time had tails. These cavemen lived in a geographically diverse region with a cockatoo, a camel, a monkey - but no women. This film tells of the "hilarious" misadventures of seven(or so) cavemen - having burned their land with the new discovery of fire - moving on by water to a new land where they find this woman with the extra appendage. Along the way we get such "great" moments of comedy like a fat cavemen swallowing a frog that keeps croaking in his stomach. A monkey throwing rocks at their heads. A man swallowing a mouse to get the frog in his stomach. The obligatory "gay" caveman. The list could go on and on. This movie is the very definition of cinematic dreck. I was bored from the onset and it only got worse as the cavemen bobbled around hitting each other, making poor jokes such as puns on the word perch, hitting each other, and mauling poor Seta Berger who looks like she lost a bet to a producer to appear in this nonsense. She is indeed one of two bright spots in this film. She isn't much of an actress so you have to guess why she is an ass-et? The other "bright" spot is the music. As soon as I heard the score, I said to myself that it sounded very familiar. I had never heard the actual score but the music was unmistakably that of Ennio Morricone. It's a nice score and the best thing in an otherwise crude, boring, lewd, unimaginative, and ridiculous film essentially about a group of Moes finding a woman for the first time and, first wanting to eat her like some animal, being taught what she could do. Awwwwh! Sorry, I'm stifling a yawn as I relive the plot! The end of the film has some 100 or so mostly naked women on screen with all the erotic feel of pulling a scab off your knee. This movie was painful to sit through and offers nothing of any real merit whatsoever. The fact that it spawned a sequel doesn't surprise me as it offers that one thing which will prick viewer interest - tail.


I readily admit that I watch a lot of really bad movies. But there are very few that I can think of that are quite as bad as When Women Had Tails. It's a stinker of epic proportions. What should have been a sexy comedy about a group of cavemen discovering a woman for the first time is instead a dull, lifeless affair without a single laugh to be had. The comedy is extremely weak. I suppose if you think bashing someone in the head is funny, you might find a laugh or two. The guys in this movie make the Three Stooges look like high art. And there's just not enough of a plot to hold the thing together. It seems to drag on and on and on.

Well, you may be asking yourself, "If it's as bad as you say, why haven't you rated it lower than a 3/10?" Good question! And I've got two answers. First, the movie is not without its curiosity value. I do find a bit of interest in an Italian spoof of movies like One Million Years B.C. with Raquel Welch. I'll give When Women Had Tails a point for its historic "value". The other two points are for the mere presence of Senta Berger. I know it's not much of an explanation or reasoning for a rating, but what are you going to do? It's the best I can come up with.


Is it possible for a movie to get any worse than this? There's a bunch of apes wandering about, mumbling b******, acting supposedly silly and we are supposed to laugh? There is no plot here to keep you going in the first place. Even when the women finally show up, there is no sign of improvement; the most expected things happen and by the time the film is over, you might be far asleep. Beware: this is not a trashy cult movie, this is trash -period! I can't believe there's even a sequel to this!

1


Yesterday I watched this tv production, and I was very disappointed.

I didn't have big expectations when it was a tv production, but the complete movie was pain with no ending. I felt it lasted for 3 hours, but it was just me who was bored to death. Every minute was a long struggle and I really fought hard to stay away from the "turn off"-switch.

The movie is about a doctor (Dr. Verghese) who gets a lot of AIDS-patients, and most of them die during the movie. It is hard for Verghese to live with, so his family gets punished with his frustrations. However this movie has problems showing both sides, it mostly focuses on his conversations with the patients, and sometimes we see flicks from his home, but we don't get much. The difficulties to show more than one part of Verghese's life doesn't get any better with the poor acting from Naveen Andrews, a man I (hopefully) can't see in any good future movies.

I believe it got 7,6 because of the subject (taboo?), but I'm sure that there are better movies about this subject on the market. Stay away from this movie, it does not deserve more than 3/10.


Dorothy Stratten is the only reason to watch this unfunny sci-fi spoof, and her appearance is a disappointment. Though she has the title role, her screentime is limited, and she only speaks a few lines of dialogue. If you're not a Stratten fan, pass this one up.


... what a porn movie would look like if you took out the sex and just left in the bad dialog, cheap sets and bad acting, you would have Galaxina.

This film came out when the Original Star Wars proved there was a market for Science Fiction. This in turn lead to some gems such as Alien and a revitalized Star Trek. Unfortunately, it also led to some bad movies, and this was obviously one of them. (I say obviously, because I hadn't even heard of this film until a few days ago.I missed it when it came out in 1980.)

Here's the underlying problem. Dorothy Stratton couldn't act, so for most of the movie, they didn't even let her try. I understand her tragic death has given this film an undeserved cult status, but for the life of me I can't understand why.

Clearly, the movie tried to Spoof Star Wars, Star Trek and Aliens, but they clearly don't understand than when you spoof something, it has to be FUNNY! This movie wasn't, or at least, the comic timing on jokes that could have been funny weren't. Science Fiction is ripe for parody, as Spaceballs and Galaxy Quest proved. This movie, however, did it poorly.


For connoisseurs of bad movies, Galaxina is a true gem. With truly horrid dialog, acting, and directing, it's no choice for people seeking a proper movie. But as one of the most unintentionally hilarious movies of its genre, it's priceless for a good laugh. In particular, the scenes involving the Harley Davidson-worshiping motorcycle cult are especially good, and many other scenes present an opportunity for a cheap laugh.

Sadly, the scenes with Dorothy Stratten really fail to deliver, but since she's playing an android, I suppose one can excuse her for wooden acting.

Bad movie-lovers, don't pass this one up!