Admittedly, when the chance to see this horribly infamous legend of a movie, my expectations were pretty low. They weren't low enough. Scholckmaster Roger Corman somehow came into ownership of the rights to produce the Marvel comic book characters sometime in the late 80's or early 90's, and handed it off to Oley Sassone, whose directorial work has largely been in campy TV series such as 'Hercules' and 'Viper'. With a supposed total budget of 1.5 million dollars, it was produced, shot and briefly released on video and then sent to the wasteland of forgotten film. There it should have remained. However, like a banana peel in a vaudeville act, this "Fantastic Four" sits out in the ether waiting to cause a pratfall for those rare people unlucky and foolish enough to step on it.

If you have ever heard of these comic book characters, you know what to expect. The people who made this were very true to the source material, and that is the only thing for which they deserve any credit in this fiasco. This presents the origins of the heroic group that develop superhuman powers when the shielding on their experimental spacecraft fails to protect them from cosmic radiation. Reed Richards (Alex Hyde-White) develops the ability to stretch his body and becomes 'Mr. Fantastic'. His girlfriend, Sue Storm (Rebecca Staab) can become invisible, and her brother, Johnny (Jay Underwood) can spontaneously cause fire to erupt from his body. Finally, Ben Grimm ('credited' to both Michael Bailey-Smith and Carl Ciafarlio) receives superhuman strength when his skin mutates to a rock-like hyde and is then referred to as The Thing. There is a prologue that sets up a former classmate of Reed's, Victor von Doom (Joseph Culp) to become their enemy, Dr. Doom, who orchestrates the sabotage of the Fantastic Four's space flight as an act of revenge for injuries he blames on Reed. There is the set-up, then the discovery of the powers, the revelation of the villain and ultimately a climactic fight. There are more details to the poorly-written script, but they are negligible.

This is a movie that was made simply because the creators (I use that in the technical sense of the word. There isn't a whole lot of creative imagination at work here.) had the legal rights to do so. The plot will be undoubtedly mirrored in the anticipated big-budget release set to be directed by Tim Story in 2005, but tackling a massive special effects project like this without a comparable budget or qualified actors qualifies as an act of cinematic insanity. What special effects exist are mostly hand drawn or simple camera tricks that have existed since the days of the original 'The Great Train Robbery'. When half of the climactic fight reverts to full-on hand animation, you're almost relieved to be watching a cartoon instead of the poor actors who were damned to be in this project. There is very little consistency of style in this mess as well. Most scenes are either shot flat in available light or wild primary colors, and the only dressed sets are the obvious sci-fi pieces. There is camera-work, but it is mostly just keeping the characters centered on the screen and minimal information flowing to the audience. Editing includes leaving in extra lines and using obvious wipes (at one point there is even a transition using the center of a number 4). Editing spins are even used to supplement the poor special effects when The Thing transforms. The one scene where morphing technology was put to use was shocking only because it was such a positive jump up in quality.

Limited camera work is not unforgivable. In 'Clerks', only the most basic camera movements are used and there is almost no style. It worked for that film because it was about people whose lives had no style, and it was consistent. Kevin Smith never let his reach exceed his grasp. 'The Blair Witch Project' caused some audiences to suffer motion sickness from the jerky hand-held stuff that put that pseudo-documentary together. When all was said and done, it was an effective work about the terror of getting lost and being consumed by a frightening situation. There is no sense of story or theme here on either a spoken or visual level. With this 'Fantastic Four', you never get more than an accidental laugh at the fact that the film makers and performers seem to be actually trying to rival other comic book movies with this poorly budgeted entry.

Any film involves a great deal of time and work. It just so sad that so much of both was poured into a project like this. If you're one of the people who were involved with this, it was most likely done as a stepping stone on the road of a (hopefully improved) film career. Everyone knows about taking jobs to make the most of what appears to be an opportunity. For those who are curious about watching this movie, my advice is to only do so with a group of friends (so you can all point and say "you watched it, too") who have been forewarned about the experience (so nobody gets hurt from the shock), and maybe you can come up with a drinking game to ease the pain between the accidental laughs.

1 out of 10


Whether or not this adaptation of the Marvel comic was made  and shelved  so its production company could retain the copyright to the characters, it doesn't change the fact that it's utter rubbish. The Dr. Doom and (especially) Thing costumes are surprisingly good, but everything else suffers from a deficit of either cash or talent. Director Oley Sassone can't even point a camera at stuff without including such howlers as a blind woman's POV, the dialogue is absolutely dismal, the team's costumes don't fit properly, and the effects are appalling: the Human Torch seems to be drawn onto the film with felt tip pens, while Mr. Fantastic's powers are brought to life using a bendy blue stick with a glove on the end. Joseph Culp compensates for having to wear a mask by wildly waving his arms about, Jay Underwood is incredibly annoying, the rest of the cast hit various levels of terrible, and while it's hard not to feel sorry for all these guys who thought this movie would get a release, it's equally difficult to imagine any of them believing it was actually any good.


this is the worst movie i have ever seen in my entire life .period.this movie goes beyond ridiculous,it is like the director wants to get his ass sued by the actors for wrongfully misrepresenting their roles as the fantastic four,i believe the movie should have been released in comic book stores in order for the only how u should say it,desperate geeks who cant get enough cheesiness and want to see more and more crap movies.in conclusion to my paradox statements and thesis,i do believe this movie has had great disadvantages to the futures of the cast's contributors,with the exception of jay underwood's character,in which i do believe it was his best performance,considering roles such as the not quite human movies in which the story is told in a way that he has no character.he cant act,and people have made good decisions to not go see his movies,this is why he is most likely not going to be any huge roles,unless he sparks his career in a most rare,but interesting way.


I have always loved bad creations, rhetorical criticism and my film professor validated that for me in college. This is not as bad as The Star Wars Holiday Special, there is nothing bottom of the lunchbox than that mistake. This The Fantastic Four film, complete with the I-have-no-idea-why-hes-excessively-tweaking-his-fingers Doctor Doom, is high on the list of colossal mistakes. Doom's dialogue "Kill him!...Let him go!" is classic as it is staggering in its hilarity. The editing is good, and the director of photography isn't half-bad...those are the up-sides. I cannot, however, subject all my friends to watch in its entirety, but if I can get the chance I show them the "can Jonny and Sue come to outer space with us!" scene I do. I also include the final scene scene, where Redd Richards in his FF outfit for some reason, alongside his bride Sue in her wedding dress, get into the limo...the payoff is the extendo arm in farewell as they drive away. Most people are in complete disbelief that something like this exists.


Without a doubt this is the WORSE comicbook movie every made. PERIOD!! Yes, it's worse then Dolph Lundgren's (1989) Punisher. Yup.. worse then the 1979 & 1991 Captain America movies. Oh yeah, it's even WORSE then Christopher Reed scripted Superman IV: Quest for Peace movie. Sheeshh.. that movie was so bad that the guy who played Nuclear Man only starred in one other film and it was only on T.V. =oP

This movie is "D" quality. I had a chance to watch it on the SciFi channel back in 1997. I had heard it was pretty bad, but had nothing else to do that night so I figured I check it out. What a waste of an hour and a half. I would have been better off watching reruns of Different Strokes. Besides having the lamest special effects and worse acting I've ever seen, the whole script was just awful and not well directed at all. Thankfully a NEW Fantastic Four movie is being done and hopefully this version will do the heroes justice. I was hoping for a New SPAWN movie in the future, but it has yet to materialize.

Do not rent this movie. If you happen to see it being televised on cable, check it out. Be warned though, you'll most like be flipping the channel after the first 15 mins.


This is truly awful, the feeblest attempt at a comics adaptation ever committed to film. Every possible thing about this movie that could be bad, is. Music, acting, lighting, sets, "special" effects... about the only positives I can find are that Sue looks cute in her blue tights and that the Thing make-up is almost passable (face only). That's it. Zip. Don't bother tracking down that bootleg copy; it's really not worth your time. Even the aborted "Captain America" movie from the early 90's is far less excruciating than squirming in your seat while you try to endure this mess.


Drifting around on bootlegs, sometimes thought an urban comic book legend, the first FF movie is pretty much as bad as everyone fears. I guess Marvel Comics now pretends it doesn't exist, what with the 2005 version out in theaters earlier this year. But it's out there, a reminder and the last of the first wave of bad, low budget Marvel super-hero adaptations (Captain America, Punisher, most of the TV movies). 'Low budget' is too easy a description for this FF pic. Due to basically no funds, showing the powers of the super foursome was limited to very quick shots (Mr.Fantastic), quasi-animation (Torch), and fades (Invisible Girl-the easiest to do). The Thing suit was not bad and probably half the budget; the face part was especially almost convincing. The acting? Alex Hyde-White as Reed is pretty good; the other 3 are OK, tho Jay as Johnny acts like a spaz at times to sort of show off his 'fiery' temper. The dialog is comic-book style, and it's the supporting cast which ends up floundering trying to make it work. Dr.Doom is way over melodramatic and unintentionally comical, and his two main henchmen are a case study of how not to act or write dialog.

The plot? Not too good. It was quite faithful to the origin story of the FF (more so than the later big budget version), and even though the non-budget, again, restricted showing, for example, the actual crash landing, it kept the essential ingredients of how they discovered their powers in an isolated area - it's the best part of the picture, tho you have to wait a full half-hour for it. I also found the music odd in places; when the 4 are bathed in those cosmic rays, a kind of church choir is heard, as if it's a religious experience. The rest of it, however, is hopeless. Even with no budget, the story could have done without the Jeweler character (resembling the Mole Man villain of the books); it spends way too much time with him and his underground gang, as well as the blind Alicia. These sections are a waste of celluloid and very boring. The climactic struggle with Doom & his men starts fine, but degenerates into an awful mess as the Torch races a laser beam (cool animation but belonging in a cartoon). Fans can have a laugh at the bad FF FX and witless storyline, if they don't get depressed & outraged first.


Yes! this movie was just bad in every way in things like cast,effects,boredom,excitement,and of course,being fantastic and we all know the four heroes in this one were a bit more colourful compared to the new ones but it still has to go,A fantastic bore like this really was just silly trash which i knew nobody would like when i saw it,i mean surely with that budget about 3 or 4 GOOD movies could have been made but no. I am just glad that the new version made this year totally showed everyone how the fantastic four should have been made with good story,great cast like Jessica Alba one of my favourite actresses otherwise it would have been totally forgotten but thankfully no. The new one was excellent when i saw it with my mates at the cinema but this old fantastic bore has gotta go.


As long as you keep in mind that the production of this movie was a copyright ploy, and not intended as a serious release, it is actually surprising how not absolutely horrible it is. I even liked the theme music.

And if ever a flick cried out for a treatment by Joel (or Mike) and the MST3K Bots, this is it! Watch this with a bunch of smart-ass wise-crackers, and you're in for a good time. Have a brew, butter up some large pretzels, and enjoy.

Of course, obtaining a copy requires buying a bootleg or downloading it as shareware, but if you're here on the IMDb, then you're most likely savvy enough to do so. Good luck.

And look for my favorite part....where Dr. Doom informs the FF that they have 12 hours to comply with his wishes....and he actually gestures the number "12" with his finger while doing so....it's like "Evil Sesame Street"....hoo boy.

...and of course Mrs. Storm declaring "Just look at you....the Fanstastic Four" is just so heartwarming....you'll laugh, you'll cry.....

So if you love schlocky Sci-Fi, this one's Fantastic For you!


I am a chess player and I wanted to like this film. Trouble is, the content could have been fitted in a 30-minute documentary.

There were lots of shots of corridors being walked down and Kasparov gazing out in the hall where he won the World Championship. There were other shots of Kasparov being walked round the site of the 1997 match and being told where he sat and where Deep Blue was located. This just looked like filler.

Also, I didn't find it interesting to see in detail where Deep Blue was now and seeing an IBM techie trying, unsuccessfully to 'open' it. What would we have seen of interest inside anyway - a little grandmaster?

Also, the recent match against Karpov. I no longer follow professional chess enough to know when and where this was. It would have been nice to have been told: was this a one-off 'just for the money'? Was it part of the world championship cycle? What was the final score? The nub of the film was the play in game two. Could/would IBM let Kasparov see 'inside' the machine? That's where the focus should have been.


I'm writing this note as a chess player as well as as a movie viewer. I watched the 1997 Kasparov-Deep Blue games on the Internet. I know something about the issues that were raised. Other chess players will come along and want to know whether this movie is worth seeing/buying, and I'm talking largely to them. However, I'll try not to ignore those who aren't "into chess".

This movie is about the 1997 match between Garry Kasparov and the custom-built computer "Deep Blue". However, the first image you see in the movie is not of Kasparov, or of the computer, but of "THE TURK". This is an "automaton" which was built in Europe at the turn of the 18th-19th century and played winning chess against all comers. I put the word "automaton" in quotes because it was, as everyone now knows, a fake. There was a man inside it.

If you don't like seeing "THE TURK", then you won't be able to stand the movie, because "THE TURK" has as much screen time as Kasparov, maybe more, both in modern footage and in b/w footage from some old movie. The reappearance of "THE TURK" every few seconds underscores Kasparov's charge that "Deep Blue" had human assistance - that it was (to some degree) a fake computer, that IBM cheated, that there was "a man inside it" working behind the scenes to help it win. Not only does Kasparov believe this, but the filmmakers seem to believe it too. And so this is not really much of a movie about chess games or about programming chess computers. It is a propaganda piece about a big corporation supposedly misusing a helpless grandmaster. Really it is a lot like a "negative campaign ad", as it is chock full of ominous music and evocative camera work and spooky sound effects and innuendos ("we never found out what was behind that locked door") and the ever-present "TURK".

Now, most people in the chess community are pretty much convinced that IBM did not cheat and that this was Garry's paranoia at work. To start with, in order for a human to help "Deep Blue" beat Kasparov, it would seem that you would need a human who was better than "Deep Blue" AND better than Kasparov. Since there was no such person, the whole idea is a bit suspect from the start. Furthermore, by the time this movie was made, there were computer programs that could run on your PC that could beat strong grandmasters. Today, much more than in 1997, we take it for granted that a computer can do things you might not expect. And we are less likely to take it as a monumental human tragedy that a computer beat a guy in chess. (And in fact, the bottom line is that Kasparov beat himself with two bad mistakes, including resigning game 2 in a drawn position.)

As for the chess games, you actually see very little of them. There are a few comments from masters and commentators that tell briefly how they went, but really you don't get to see hardly any of the strategy or tactics at all. Naturally as a chess player I take this as a major shortcoming, but I think that non-players are being cheated too. Imagine a baseball movie, for example, where you don't hardly get to see any of the game - just a commentator telling you that "in Game Four, the White Sox defeated the Astros with such and such a score." Nobody would make a movie like that. But here, for example, we are told that Kasparov made a bad blunder in the opening of the decisive game 6, but we aren't shown the position on the screen, or told why it was a blunder, or what he should have done instead, or anything. We just see a few seconds of Kasparov holding his head in his hands, and then more atmospheric sound effects and camera work.

(Since I saw this on DVD, let me warn chess players about the DVD as well. The jacket promises you that the Extras include the games "with analysis". Is this grandmaster analysis, which people like us might find interesting? NO! It is the automated computer voice synthesizer analysis from some version of Chessmaster, that tells you when a piece is attacked and a pawn gets isolated and that you are in the "Caro-Kann Defense, Main Line". Blahhhh.)

Someone might then come along and say, "Well, clearly this movie is meant to dramatize the match for the non-player, and so it's unfair to be impatient with it." But actually it doesn't do a very good job of reaching out to the non-player either - it skates over some points that a true novice would really want to have explained. For example it says that Kasparov could have gotten "perpetual check" in the second game, but it doesn't explain what that is (or show what it would have looked like on the board, which would have been interesting). It flashes back to the Kasparov-Karpov matches but doesn't explain why there were two of them or who organized them etc. I didn't need this information myself, but I'm familiar with it. If you don't already have chess experience, there are places where you are going to be confused, and this is just a defect in the film.

Ultimately I can't recommend the movie, which, like "THE TURK" itself, is not what it purports to be (a documentary) but more of a stage illusion.


What Game Over: Kasparov and the Machine does best is to delve into Garry Kasparov's psyche during the 1997 competition against IBM's Deep Blue. You see him becoming more and more paranoid, and increasingly unravelled, all because in the second game, Deep Blue made a move that seemed too human for his preconceived notion of chess computers. Kasparov thought then, and still does, that IBM cheated.

Game Over tries to seem unbiased, but it is clear that the director thinks that IBM cheated. However, they give no real evidence to support the cheating claim, only intimations that IBM's security surrounding the computer room was because IBM really had grandmasters hidden in there overriding the computer on certain key occasions, and Kasparov's assertion that the computer didn't play like a computer usually does at one point in game two. In game two, Kasparov played a game that was designed to trick the computer, attempting to sacrifice a pawn in a situation where previous computer chess programs would have taken the pawn, leading to the computer's eventual loss. Deep Blue didn't take the bait, and Kasparov was so rattled because the computer seemed to play like a human that he didn't even see that he could have played Deep Blue to a draw and ended up resigning. That game psyched him out so much that he was unable to recover, and after playing games 3,4, and 5 to draws, lost game 6 horribly.

The question of whether IBM cheated all comes down to that single move in game two, where the Deep Blue made the move that any human would make but that had, up to that point, tripped up computers. Joel Benjamin, a chess grandmaster on IBM's programming team explained in the documentary that they knew that chess computers always got tripped up in that situation, and consequently spent a lot of time and effort programming Deep Blue so that it wouldn't make the mistake that other computers do. If you believe Benjamin's assertion, then the case is clear, IBM did not cheat. Unfortunately, the director quickly moved on and never mentioned IBM's explanation for the rest of the movie, preferring to cut between shots of the chess playing hoax of the 19th century, The Turk, and shots of Deep Blue, hinting that Deep Blue was really controlled by a human as well. As someone who has an understanding of programming, the explanation by IBM makes perfect sense--if you knew what you were doing, it would not be terribly difficult to put something in the code so that, if thus and so conditions are reached, then do thus and so--in other words, tell the computer what to do if a situation like the one that Kasparov created in game 2 ever happened. This isn't cheating, it's doing a good job of programming a chess computer.

In the end, it's eminently clear that the director thinks that IBM cheated, and the repeated comments about IBM's stock rising 15% the day that Deep Blue won suggest the idea that IBM cheated to pump its stock price (Kasparov even compares IBM and Deep Blue to Enron). However, there is plenty of outside opinion, within both the chess and computer science communities, that Deep Blue won fair and square and that Kasparov lost because he simply couldn't get past his view of computers as "dumb machines" and got psyched out by a machine that didn't seem so dumb after all. I just wish that the director had let us see the alternative opinion.


i was disappointed in this documentary.i thought it would be about the second chess match between Grandmaster Garry Kasporov and Deep Blue the supercomputer designed by IBM computer experts to beat any human chess player.Kasparov was and still is,considered the greatest chess player ever.the movie takes us back to 1997 where Kasporov had agreed to have a rematch with "deep Blue" after defeating it 1 year earlier.but instead of focusing on the game,it focuses more on what happens before and after.there are snippets of the game,but not very many.much of the film centers around Kasporov's paranoid obsession that the match was rigged as part of some conspiracy theory and that he lost the match unfairly.the movie also includes interviews with people who are not interesting in any way.they even chat with the manager of the building where the match took place.who cares?i also found it very dry and slow.ultimately this movie was unsatisfying.this is just my opinion,of course.if you like conspiracy theories,this movie might interest you.for people not into chess or conspiracy theories,this movie would probably have no value.i am a chess fan,and i only stuck it out because of that.i give"Game Over:Kasparov and the Machine" 4/10


Being an admitted chess addict, I was excited to see a documentary about the 1997 rematch between Garry Kasparov and IBM's Deep Blue supercomputer. I was hoping to see an in depth look at the match and a lot of what Kasparov had to say. Boy was I wrong and misguided by a mile. This documentary is a lot like many modern documentaries - there is a lot of flash but no real substance. After watching it, I am sad to say, I felt like I wasted my time. One of the most annoying aspects about the documentary is that it does not stay at one place for a decent period of time. It has the typical MTV type editing, where the camera shows different images and quick sound bites from people every five seconds. It is very sad that film-making has been watered down to the attention span of a 10-year old child.

I understand it is difficult to make a film about chess, but that does not mean one should make it flashy. 'Game Over' did have a couple of interesting ideas though. It brought up the idea whether computers can think like human beings or not; whether computers have advanced to a unique new level. This is what Kasparov thought after the match, but this film does not go deep enough with this idea. Also, this film tries to bring in a bizarre theory. It tries to imply the paranoid that a human being was making the moves along with the help of the computer. Kasparov had suspicions about this, but still to this day there is no evidence. Towards the end of the film, it tries to imply the bizarre that maybe Anatoly Karpov might have been the human being who was secretly making the moves with the aid of Deep Blue. Interesting to think about, but I don't know how plausible or realistic it is. I still would not recommend this movie though, not even for chess addicts.


This documentary was neither professionally nor objectively made. The whole thing played out like a conspiracy theory by IBM to win the match in question just to make some money. Garry Kasparov has an ego problem. He was puffed up before the match and when he lost, he didn't like it. I remember playing chess against computers back in the 80s and it wasn't too difficult to win. As time went on, I started to lose and didn't like it. Today, I simply don't play against computers anymore because they're just too good. Not only that, the games are uninteresting and lack the appeal of human games, where both sides are more likely to err and open the game to exciting possibilities. This documentary keeps showing us images of The Turk which is an ancient chess playing automaton that was really controlled by a human being. From the start until the end we are lead to believe that IBM short of literally hid a human GM in the back of their cupboard-sized computer. I'm a computer scientist and take offense at the notion that just because Garry lost, IBM must have cheated. I know how computers play chess. It's not magic and it's no mystery. They can be trained, have huge amounts of chess knowledge and they most certainly see positions and possibilities in unprecedented detail compared to humans. It's really no surprise that Deep Blue won. Perhaps at the time it was. If it happened today, given the ever-increasing processing power of machines; people would hardly blink. If a machine couldn't at least draw with a GM today, people would think the program was weak.


Kasparov vs. Deep Blue is no doubt a fascinating story, but I don't think you'd know it by watching this movie. I think it focuses too much on the conspiracy theory that IBM cheated...and what does this theory hinge upon? The idea that at one point the computer made a move that "looked human". I am not a chess grandmaster or a computer scientist. And while I don't doubt that the move looked human, to me it doesn't seem beyond the realm of possibility that the most powerful chess-playing computer ever created could make a surprising move...or that such a machine could beat even a genius like Kasparov. The movie gets way too much mileage out of this theory, and not enough out of the personalities of the people involved...that could have made it a much more interesting story. The direction also relies way too much on the conceits of a pointlessly whispered narration, and the imagery of an 18th century chess-playing machine that looks like one of those animatronic gypsy fortunetellers you see at the carnival. Also the story was slowed down by many empty shots of Kasparov revisiting "the scene of the crime". I don't doubt that Kasparov and the chess community found IBM's behavior vexing, but I don't think it's any different than you would find from any other big corporation. At the end of the movie, you are left with the feeling that Kasparov is a huge crybaby and the Deep Blue programmers are either victims or cheats. I think if the filmmaker wanted the viewer to believe the conspiracy theory (which he almost certainly did), he should have presented a lot more evidence. In fact, more evidence would have been a good idea in the first place. The whole thing left me with a sour taste in my mouth.


This episode sucks.

Over the past few years I have watched all episodes of "Next Generation" and "Voyager" and am now watching "Enterprise".

I am thoroughly enjoying this series. Until this episode. I stared at the screen in horror at the destruction of character and entertainment. It is more like an attempt at slapstick.

It does not build the characters but throws them out on a limb - and leaves the audience gasping. It does little to build the series.

Why this was ever allowed to go to air amazes me. Was it the writing? Was it the directing? Was it the producer? We'll probably never know.

But one bad apple isn't bad I suppose. I say that hoping it is only one.


Where on earth do I start with the mess that is Darkhunters? Firstly the script is one of the worst to ever find its way onto a cinema or TV screen and can only be described as a poorly judged Stephen King rip-off. At one point the supposedly fearsome darkhunter Jack claims that Carol, the girl who is helping the man he is pursuing, is as annoying as "a gherkin in a burger". I would be laughing if I was making it up-BUT I'M NOT! Just as ludicrous is how Carol originally came to have the power to see how people die. A cat gave it to her when she was holding it during an auto accident she had as a kid. WHAT????????

Secondly, for a horror movie, it has no sense of tension or threat whatsoever. This may not be helped by the fact that all the action happens during stark, broad daylight. Not very atmospheric at all.

Thirdly the acting is truly awful, Pinion proves again that he needs to be speaking in his native tongue to be even remotely believable. Jeff Fahey is obviously on auto-pilot but how can blame him as he runs through a woe-ful Humphry Bogart impersonation as Barlow (Marlowe-Barlow? We get the joke it just isn't funny). Credit should go to Susan Paterno, an actress I was not aware of, she does her best with the awful part she has and puts the other, more experienced actors to shame.

At no point is it even explained how the HUMAN character can understand what Van Husen's character is saying to her. She obviously has some sort of degree in screwy alien languages.

On the plus side one moment is well done, the car crash involving Susan. The sfx are throughly believable and if it weren't for the hilarious storyline reason for this to occur it would have been applauded.

All I can say about darkhunters is that British horror will never recover from its interminable slump if movies like this continue to be made and shown. Avoid this movie like the plague, although the plague would be a lot more scary.

Darkhunters 0/5

p.s. the insinuations in other reviews that the film remains too intelligent for some are honestly hilarious. It is a weak defence when some claim "you didn't like it because you didn't understand it". The letters after my name make a fool of you not me.


This has got to be one of the worst films I have ever seen! The cast is an international one - Australian-pretending-to-be-British, stage American and a character with an English name sporting an unrecognizable "European" accent. What passable efforts in acting from this motley crew are totally undermined by a plot and script of especial inanity. So short were the shoestrings of this film's budget and the overall production values are so low that it would have no trouble winning a cinematic limbo competition. In the last twenty or so years we have seen horror films and stalk'n slash thrillers of extraordinary (though not necessarily "high") quality which have been made on no budget at all. Recent examples include the poorly made but totally scary "Blair Witch Project" and of course - the most recent - that low-budget winner, SAW, featuring practically unknown leads (Gary Elwes is just someone you don't remember even if you have seen him before). In DARKHUNTERS, it is shocking to find a known character actor, Dominique Pinon and Hollywood has-been Jeff Fahey struggling valiantly to save the film. It is embarrassing to see the once handsome leading man (Fahey) in corny makeup uttering bizarrely bad lines. I would have rated this film 0 out of 10 had that been possible!


Well, I'll begin with this: I love horror-movies, not even the worst plot or the most insanely terrible acting will ruin the experience as long as there is a certain amount of gore and suspense present. Second; this is the worst movie of all times. It even beats Mean Guns, and the attack of the killer tomatoes. And for that I pay it homage.

However, the involuntary humor was only funny until half the movie had passed, after which point everything was so so sad. To my great surprise, the reviews where somewhat divided; and you guys who rated this piece of C-movie-crap from 7 and up; I KNOW YOU'RE JOKING! GOOD ONE!! HAHAHA! Because if there is any reason in the world, and we have just an tiny bit of the same notion of what quality is; you can't be for real.

Everything worth to be mentioned about the contents has already been summed pretty good up, so I'll leave it.

MINOR SPOILER ALERT

But the scene where the cloaked rubber mask guy drags the woman back and forth through the dog-kennel for ten minutes, with o so terrible music score and the mind blowing dialog between the two, really does it for me.


Spoilers

I'm going to be as kind as I can about this film (some people, including directors!, can get quite upset when reviewers speak their mind) so...

There is a nice car accident and the opening credits look good and... that's it; everything else bites the big one. All the acting is appalling, the script is embarrassing, the special effects look like they were done by school children on cheap computers. All in all this film has serious bowling shoe tendencies.

As a horror film it's not very scary and if it supposed to a "thinking man's" horror film well it succeeded on some level, I kept thinking that the end of this film is an awfully long way away. It may actually be an ironic look at bad horror films and I'm missing the point but I somehow doubt it.

This is a complete car phone warehouse of a film and I could not recommend it to anyone, and it does pain me to say this as I eagerly await the resurrection of British Horror.

If you don't agree with this review, that fine, it's just my own opinion, and I'm sure someone out there will love it (the director's Mum for instance).


OK, it was a "risky" move to rent this flick, but I thought I had nothing to lose.Well, I was wrong. This is, next to "Bloodsurf", the worst "horrormovie" I have ever seen. Crappy actors, crappy technical output, crappy story and so on. The soundtrack though, isn't to bad. That is why I give it a 2 on the vote and not just a 1. And of course the cats are a positive surprise. By far the superior actors in this movie..... Do not rent or buy it. Stay away from it and hope that this horrible, horrible film will vanish to some obscure existence and not become a "cult classic". It most definitely do not deserve any recognition.


From the dire special effects onwards I was absolutely gob smacked at how bad anyone can make a film. Lets put it this way, I have absolutely no directing experience whatsoever and for the first time ever when watching a film I thought 'I can do better than that! whilst sat watching this pap. The acting in this film was terrible, I suppose the best actor was the guy from Lawnmower Man but the French guy from Aliens3 was so wooden I wondered how he got the former job in the first place. The storyline was mediocre and I suppose, like most films, If the rest had been done well it would have stood up. I don't usually write reviews here but after seeing a couple of people gave this film a good rating (must be cast/crew) I felt I had to say my piece to save anyone from accidentally hiring it or wasting their money on buying this cack.


OK the box look interesting, the opening have great music and its kinda original, to that its all OK. But when the movie start...well its not my first videoville movie, i watched Ghost Lake, and its very similar of this movie except its ever worse here. The story at first sounded interesting but the whole movie look like a movie shot by a bunch of university student, with specials effect that me laugh, the blood look like a mix of red and white paint, the fire effect on the demon face look like it was done with a program i could buy at my local computer shop. All the movie is shot in day(very great for a movie supposed to be horror) and there like no gore(1 scene only and it look so home-made and not credible) and near no blood(it can be considered a great thing considering the look of the blood show) and 1 demon for the whole movie. The story is going nowhere , it give you the impression that it never start, there so much useless scene done only to give the movie the average duration time(when the demon search the guy in the dogs thing for about 4 minutes...) Way too much slow-mo things. Well lets just say this movie is a Z-series one and a very poor one. All cool idea lost themselves and you get a cheesy movie. It bored my all long and I'm not the guy who get bored very easily with horror movie, man i even like house of the dead and alone in the dark from Uwe Boll and you probably know the name for being one of the worst director but here it look too much like some guys wanting to make a movie for fun. Plus for us french speaker(tough i understand English i prefer to watch movie in my native language) there the usual videoville bad translation. In normal movie you can barely see its not the actor speaking(you have to check on lips etc) here you just have to listen to it and you know it. Very cheesy


This film is truly pathetic in every conceivable department. awful, awful, awful. It's only around eighty minutes long, but believe me you'll feel like you're watching an Andy Warhol film (then again twenty hours in the life of the empire state building would surely be far more interesting).

Where to start... the putrid script, the disgusting cinematography, the so bad its bad acting, the spectacularly dismal effects, dreadful music, or just the wafer thin plot that thouroughly resembles a sieve. This film is an incoherent shambles

A particularly noteworthy scene takes place outside a cafe when Dominic Pinon decides to shoot a cat, cue the waitress watching through the cafe window who comments with an average English accent "God damn". To right that woman. God damn this horrendous monstrosity.

Everyone involved should be thouroughly ashamed of themselves. Let us hope that the director never finds the funding to work again.


Horrible acting with the worst special f/x I've ever bore witness too. It's bad enough I wasted $3 to watch this crummy pile of crap, but it's the hour and a half time I lost that I could've been doing anything else like getting a root canal or volunteering for jury duty. Getting drunk couldn't even help this video.

To put it bluntly, I sincerely believe I actually lost a few IQ points during the course of watching this idiotic piece of mind-numbing "work"! Perhaps I should have followed my own advice this time. Never expect a decent film if it's written, directed and produced by the same person, and never EVER expect anything of value from Jeff Fahey.


I just watched this today on TV. It was on ABC's Sunday Afternoon Movie.

This wasn't a very good movie, but for a low budget independent film like this, it was okay. There is some suspense in it, but there are so many bad qualities that really bring the movie down. The script is pretty lame, and the plot elements aren't very realistic, such as the way a 911 operator would laugh and hang up when someone is reporting a murder. I don't know what the writer was thinking when they came up with that idea, but it isn't very realistic.

I thought this movie was going to be a good suspense thriller, because there were a few scenes that seemed like they would lead to something good, but unfortunately, they never did. There were a few plot elements that have been used in other movies similar to this, and in the end, didn't prove to be very creative.

If there is something good about this movie, it is the cast. Every actor in this movie did good with what they had to work with. The terribly underrated actress Elizabeth Pena was great in this movie. She is very sexy, and has an incredibly sexy voice. However, if you want to see a movie of hers that is really good, watch the excellent animated movie The Incredibles. In that movie, she put her sexy voice to good use.

What can I say, this movie isn't really worth your time, but the actors were good. Unfortunately, they were all wasted on this movie, which is a real shame. This movie tried to be a good suspense thriller, but in the end, it fell flat. If you want to see a good movie that is similar to this, but much better, see The Hitcher. If you want to see something with the cast members of this movie, watch any of their other movies. You can real easily pass on this movie if you ever get the chance to see it.


The first half of this film held some promise as it seemed like the film was going to be a low-key character psychodrama like THE MINUS MAN but then the whole thing collapses into cliche and the viewer slowly loses all interest. There's a decent cast here but the film is lifeless and the talent completely wasted.


When the Legends Die is a powerful, moving story of an orphaned Ute Indian who goes on to become Tom Black Bull, a champion bronc rider. Raised in the old ways, Tom is given a white man's name and must adopt the language and ways of the white man to live in that world. Bitter about the role he has been forced into, Tom finds fulfillment doing one thing, busting horses, riding them to death, in the rodeo. The movie has Richard Widmark in the role of Red, the man who befriends Tom and acts as his manager. Red is a drunk who eventually dies in the story, which is about where the movie ends. The real story is completely ignored, the dark side of Tom Black Bull who develops a reputation as a killer of horses in the rodeo arenas. Oh well, you should read the book, this movie doesn't come close to doing the story justice.


Enjoy the opening credits. They're the best thing about this second-rate but inoffensive time-killer which features passable performances from the likes of Eric Roberts and Martin Kove. The main part, however, goes to newcomer Tommy Lee Thomas who looks a bit diminutive for this kind of action but who, nevertheless, occasionally manages to project a banty-rooster kind of belligerence. The first time we see him he's bare-chested, sweaty, and engaged in that favorite "beefcake" activity -- chopping wood. After this he has seven more scenes without his shirt including one in which he's hanged by his wrists and zapped with electricity a la Mel Gibson in "Lethal Weapon." He could use a better script, however, since the manner in which he exposes the truth about corruption and violence inside the prison is never very convincing. There's also talk about millions of dollars which apparently is tied in with this investigation but which is never explained. There are a few pluses, though. Sending "John Woodrow" undercover as "John Wilson" is an amusing play on a presidential name, and co-star Jody (Ross) Nolan shows promise as an inmate who, early in the proceedings, is shown hanged by his wrists and getting punched by a burly guard. One final note: the movie's low budget is painfully responsible for the lack of "extras." Despite the impressive size of the prison, it only seems to hold about 12 inmates! (Note: the cast credits at the end aren't too helpful. For the record, the burly, bald-headed guard who uses Jody Nolan as a punching bag is played by Bill Fishback, and the young, fair-haired guard who administers electric shocks to Tommy Lee Thomas is played by Marc Chenail.)


2001 wasn't perhaps Eric Roberts best year. Both Raptor and this came out. Watched Raptor a while ago and really thought it sucked and being Erics worst. But that had it´s share moment of fun and D-standard. This one doesn't have a thing.

Tommy Lee Thomas is the name of the probably worst actor in these days. The story lacks any punch and the whole thing feels even slower than a snail breaking in curves.

The two thing that stands out are Martin Kove and Eric Roberts. You could argue about their effort being good or what but compared to the rest they are above all criticism.

I say thank you Roberts see you next time (and hopefully a better one).


Eric Roberts "stars" in this Tommy Lee Thomas debut prison film. He plays the leader of a corrupt ring of guards. Though evil by most people's standards, his character is the kind of guy who is nice enough to give you supporting wires while you hang chained to the ceiling as he tortures you with "Lethal Weapon" electric prods.

The movie has an intricate plot about prison corruption that makes absolutely no sense. Thomas has Clint Eastwood's squinter eyes, Dolph Lundgren's one-liners, the acting abilities of JCVD and the body of the tiniest guy you knew in school who took steroids after graduation.

Martin "Cobra Kai" Kove's career shares this low point with Roberts, in the film it is difficult to tell if Kove's character is supposed to be drunk for the entire movie or if Kove just came that way. I couldn't blame him if he did.

Fortunately for all involved, this movie has a "so bad that it's good" quality that can be fun IF YOU HAVE ABSOLUTELY NOTHING BETTER TO DO.


Worst movie ever seen. Worst acting too. I cannot imagine a movie worse then this. Nothing to see. No acting at all.T hey (actors) should look for another job. I cant't understand who was stupid enough to actually put money into this movie.

I'm sorry for Eric Roberts. Must be tough...I cannot imagine how HUUUGE his mortgage must be to justify taking the job!

The ladies in the movie...perhaps they better stick to XXX.

As for the LEADING MAN...what a lead! He better be put on a lead and stay there! I can see him being more successful at barking rather than acting.

Overall rating: Do NOt rent...DO NOT BUY!


"In the sweltering summer of 1958, the Deuces, a gang of Brooklyn toughs, find their turf threatened when the leader of a rival gang, the Vipers, is released from prison. Leon (Stephen Dorff), the Deuces' leader, tries to guide his boys through bloody brawls to keep the Vipers out. But when his brother (Brad Renfro) falls into a sultry - and dangerous - relationship with Annie (Fairuza Balk), the sister of a Viper, and his own girlfriend is brutally attacked, Leon and his gang are plunged into an all-out war to save his brother, his girl - and his neighborhood!" according to the DVD sleeve description. This is definitely no "Basketball Diaries".

Think of it as "West Side Story" getting hit over the head with baseball bats and steel pipes, stickball having left Brooklyn with the Dodgers. "Deuces Wild" has some cool Hollywood sets, 1950s cars and soundtrack songs; and, much of it is nicely photographed by John A. Alonzo. The story and direction never get beyond these strengths, which enables the film to peak during its opening minutes, and proceed downhill. The cast looks good when you read the credits, but translates into an ageing, flabby mess of phony pompadours, blood, and Brylcreem and one fright wig. A sense of sadness and regret permeates the production.

*** Deuces Wild (5/3/02) Scott Kalvert ~ Stephen Dorff, Brad Renfro, Fairuza Balk, Frankie Muniz


In a nutshell the movie is about a gang war in the 1950's. Leon, the leader of the Deuces, starts the gang after his brother OD's on "junk". He vows to protect the neighborhood. The leader of the rival gang is just getting out of prison and wants revenge.

The movie didn't really do it for me. The "Good Guys" weren't any more good than the "Bad Guys". Very little was shown to suggest that the Deuces really cared for the community. I suppose the writers were going for realism here, but I just didn't care which side won. None of the characters were likable, or even capable of drawing my sympathy.

On the plus side the courtship between Annie and Bobby had some snappy dialog, and the acting overall was well done.


Worst pile of drivel to date! Everyone involved with this production should be ashamed of themselves. Not one single element of the movie was anything slightly like an original idea. A first grader telling you a story about nap time is more entertaining.


Wow, I was really disappointed. I wasn't really planning on seeing this movie in the theater, and I wish I stuck to that plan. It really should be a made-for-tv movie. I was kind of excited to see it, as I'm a big fan of Fairuza Balk, but this movie didn't do her justice. Infact I'm a little disappointed with the acting all around. What a horrible cover up of Fairuza Balk's tattoos, it bothered me every time I saw her shoulder.

There was no flow to the movie, it was very hard to get into it. One scene we get angry, hyped up, we want blood, the anticipation rises, just then the director takes us to another scene to show the love between Annie and Bobby. It would have been more enjoyable to follow if it was broken up into three sectional sunday paper comic strip.

There was also little logic behind the characters chosen to play some parts. The gangster leaders were scrawny guys, not very believable. Matt Dillon head of a mobster organization? Come on, give me a break. There was just no intimidation there.

The soundtrack.. wow. I think this is one of the worst musical scores I've ever heard. What awful guitar solos, my god. The sound of my teeth grinding was more pleasing to my friends, I'm sure.

Anyhow, there is one positive comment I'd like to make about the movie. The settings were nicely done. I liked the colours, a good job conveying that time period.


Maybe it was the fact that I saw Spider-man the day before I saw Duces Wild, but I do not think that there can be any excuse for this movie being as bad as it was. The cast was there to do it, but it seemed as if once they found them selves with a decent cast they had to try and make them fit into the movie. The only problem was that they did not fit. I did not like any of the characters and the story was sketchy at best. I left wondering why i spent my money on this movie.


Imagine every stereotypical, overacted cliche from every movie and TV show set on the streets of Brooklyn between 1930 and 1980. Populate it with a cast of interchangeable caricatures instead of actual characters. Throw in a mix of "period" music and wailing electric guitars during the "rumble" scenes. Then pass the time trying to figure out (or care) which of the Deuces is going to be killed in the (anti)climactic final rumble.

I'll give this movie points for not being just another romantic comedy, teen slasher, explosive action movie, teen sex comedy, kiddie musical, or Oscar-nomination vehicle. But bringing something new or interesting to the street-gang tragedy genre might've been nice.


Wow! i think they made this movie to torture people. there are no words for how much i hated this film. I could have been cleaning my room instead. i love bad melodrama as much as the next person but....come on!


It was awful plain and simple. What was their message? Where was the movie going with this? It has all the ingredients of a sub-B grade movie. From plotless storyline the bad acting to the cheesey slow-mo cinematography. I'd sooner watch a movie I've already seen like Goodfellas, A Bronx Tale, even Grease. There are NO likeable characters. In the end you just want everyone to die already. Save 2 hours of your life and skip this one.


This is by far the most vapid, idiotic, insanely stupid show that has EVER been on the air, and this is coming from someone who remembers "San Pedro Beach Bums".

My wife loves watching reality shows--and there was one episode of this drivel where the wannabes had to develop a "walk". The end result was straight out of Monty Python's "Ministry of Silly Walks" sketch. I couldn't laugh hard enough.

And then there's the ubiquitous Ms. Banks (as in laughing all the way to the...). She has to be the most annoying self-important woman on TV since Rosie O'Donnell left "The View". As if modeling was doing great things for mankind. Please. I've never found her attractive, and I don't find her intelligent now that she has the temerity to open her mouth.

Someone needs to tell these human clothes hangers to eat a healthy diet and actually look like real women.


Tyra Banks needs to teach these girls that it's not all about being beautiful on the outside. The inside counts for something too. A lot of the past winners have looked semi decent but are horribly cruel and starting trouble for the other girls. I see Tyra less involved with the girls in every season. About the only thing worth watching Top Model for is Mr. Jay Manuel. Recently, Tyra had a contestant who was a pre-op transsexual. I felt that she should have done more to encourage her. It was obvious that she had insecurities about her original anatomy showing through her feminine look. Tyra should have given her tips or perhaps she could have sent resident Trannie Ms. Jay to help the girl out. Instead, the contestant was met with harsh criticism and not enough positive criticism. It's a shame because I truly enjoyed the first 3 seasons. There's a reason why Project Runway has all 4 seasons out on DVD and Top Model only has 1 season on DVD. It's called taste. Top Model seriously needs a lot of revamping an some more humanity.


In watching this off and on for a few seasons, two things come to mind: One - wondering what kind of girl wants to be a "model" and two - run to the nearest ice cream store and have a low fat sundae.

I tried to be a fan because I liked the idea of this reality show competition. No other "famous" model thought of this, and it is very admirable for Tyra Banks to do so. But as the series goes on and on I've come to the conclusion that this is a sorry lot of folks trying to make a mountain out of a molehill. Women shouldn't watch this, teens should stay clear of it unless they're doing book reports on the subject.

Many women try out for slots to compete for "Americas Next Top Model". They live together, cat fight together, cry together, get put through pointless modeling shoots with pointless modeling people and fashionatas and get eliminated and almost all of them claim, "You will see me again". Heck, I'm trying to see what happened to the ones that DID win, actually.

This is the dream of some girls, and good for them. In watching this I hope the other girls that see this and run like Hades the other way - like to college.

I just happened to watch more of this recent season because of the "ploy" of full figured models joining the group. That even made me think more of this as a sorry lot of folks. The "full figured models" were no more than average sized ladies competing with what I think is the thinnest group of models they ever chose - so of course that would make them look even fatter - a "ploy" fashionatas use all the time. Bad, bad, Tyra and crew.

But to be fair, "Americas Next Top Model" is not about "full figured" models, it's about projecting an imagined image a beauty that can be mass marketed and sold as the ultimate in beauty - and this show is just looking for the next fresh piece of meat to add to the mix. Hence the name of the show. Hence the sorry lot of judges, photographers, associations. Hence Tyra and her consistent "this was me" plugs every camera angle you can get. But then again, that IS the one thing I like about this show - the ex-model giving others who wouldn't have the chance -- a chance to enter the doors. But after that...everything else is status quo for that industry which is why there are no surprises or week to week interest in the program.


Tyra & the rest of the modeling world needs to know that real women like myself and my daughter don't care to see all the ridiculous modeling to sell something. Weird locations, too much makeup & too much skin is not necessary. Sex does not always sell when you are selling to women. The same goes for the horse stomping runway walk that looks unnatural. People come in all shapes & sizes & they need to have that on the show. My daughter has a 36" inseam, is tall & slender & a size 5, I am more average at a size 12. We would like to see both- I can not picture how something would look on me when a size 2 is wearing it, it will not fit the same way on me. I do not buy magazines anymore because they are one sided on this matter. We would really love the show to consider women of all sizes. Thank you.


I would like to comment on how the girls are chosen. why is that their are always more white women chosen then their are black women. every episode their is always more white women then black one's. as if to say white women are better looking then black women. I would like for once see more black women then white. and it not just your show it's like that in a lot of shows always more white's. but i would have thought since you as the head honcho of the show you would see this yourself and have more black women on your show. but you are just like the rest trying to act like you are so fair and nice. you are just a big fony hypocrite.


How could anyone who liked the previous JP movies even stand to sit through this 1 hour of drivel? There are so many stupid things about this film it's mind boggling!! I remember when i went to see JP as a kid it was my favorite movie and franchise, the acting, the SFX the Music, the direction! all fantastic, JP2 in my opinion was OK pretty much the same apart from some really stupid moments (like the gymnast girl kicking a raptor..please!) but on a whole a watchable and reasonable cinematic experience.

But the the third one has no point!! It's supposed to be a sequel that Carry's on from JP2 and yet it magically includes brand new things to the franchise that would have been impossible to miss on the previous 2 films! for example: 1) The "new" mega Spinosaurus - Seriously, what the hell!! This thing follows them everywhere they go, they cannot escape it's presence and yet in The lost world (the same island) do you see it once? do you hear it? does anyone even MENTION it? NO! Its ridiculous!. The star character in the previous 2 movies was, and always will be the T-Rex so what does the d(urr)irector "Joe Johnston" go and do? Kill it off! as soon as you see the huge T-Rex in all its awesome roaring glory it gets killed and you never see it again - a new Dino on the town is the excuse.. where did it come from!!?? not a single explanation! and don't get me started on the whole satellite-phone-in-the-Dino-belly thing! 2)Just when you start to get over how stupid the Spinosaurus is you see the Raptors, Aside from their new "Punk" Haircuts they seem pretty credible! *Phew* they will make this movie watchable right?... WRONG! now they speak to each other!! and the excuse for them speaking in this film and not in the First and second are...wait for it... Evolution! - yes the process of millions of years in just a few months from when the second movie ended, amazing! surly they should have grown opposable thumbs and created tools by now!! OK i am not going to say anymore about the plot because it's getting up my nose, so i will close on this: Jurassic Park is a classic, JP3 is a lousy sucker punch to any of the original fans of the series, my favorite franchise was well and truly dead after watching this Monstrosity (no pun intended) Avoid this movie like the plague


When i went to see this i thought, i liked the first two and thought that they were very suspenseful so this one should be good also. WRONG! There was NO suspense and they don't explain about the new dinosaurs! When i was done watching this i had lost all respect for Steven Spielberg and Michael Crichton but then it turned out that it wasn't directed by Spielberg or written by Michael Crichton! This movie was going through "the motions." i thought that this movie had absolutely no plot and i thought that no one should waste their money to see it.


You could have put the characters on the island for any reason at all and had the same movie. The first one had an original story, the second stole one from King Kong, and in the end (I hope) of this trilogy the story seemed to have been bypassed altogether. Drop some people on an island full of dinosaurs and watch them run for their lives. That was about all there was to it. The special effects were decent but not worth 8 dollars. If you have a discount theatre in your local area, wait and see it for a buck. I wouldn't even bother renting it. That would be too much money for this unthrilling thriller.


This would probably be a good film to see....provided you've already seen every other film in existence, and thoroughly explored the bellybuttons of yourself and those around you. God, this movie was unbelievably insipid, with some of the worst (or is it nonexistent) writing ever captured on film. There is no saving grace to this film; even the animatronics are kind of lame, and it's just a complete waste of time and money.

Run. Fast. It's beyond horrible.


It's clear that for this film they wanted to have the story line driven by the characters. But immediately the story line causes you to dislike the new main characters. The fly-over of the island and dinosaurs below lacked any impact at all and almost looked like a cartoon. The all action entrance to the island is merely a rehash of parts from JP 1 and 2. The story-line is predictable to the point of annoyance and it's entirely unsatisfying end left me feeling cheated. This gave me with no option but to award the film 3/10!


(A possible minor spoiler) The first "Jurassic Park" was an effective, but silly film that did it's job and was actually pretty good. The sequel "The Lost World" had a few decent moments, but those were ruined by the lame end portion of the film which had a T-Rex running amok in San Diego. Now in "Jurassic Park III," what little story there was in the first one and the sequel, has been thrown out the window and replaced by a mere 90 minutes of basically non-stop action, which would have worked had the film not been so poorly done.

Sam Neill is back as Dr. Grant, who is given a proposition by a couple (William H. Macy & Tea Leoni) to come with them to an island to help them find their son, who's been lost for over 2 months. But of course this island just happens to be populated by dinosaurs and of course the plane the are on just happens to crash leaving them stranded with a bunch of dinos after them.

This one was obviously intended as a thrill ride, with no real story whatsoever, but even on that level the movie doesn't deliver. Director Joe Johnston ("Jumanji") somehow managed to take what little magic was left in the "Jurassic" movies and squeeze the life right out of it.

 The dinos look okay, though by now they're just standard fair and not very scary. The bottom line is it's not a very good film, even as a thrill ride. * out of 4 stars.


To summarize, my group of friends and I spent about 45 minutes outside the theater sharing our favorites gaffes, plot inconsistencies, untied loose ends, and other ridiculous aspects of this movie. I found the story trite to the point of inconsequential and the plot lines as underdeveloped as the dino embryos still locked in the shaving cream canister from Jurassic Park 1. The editing was poor and none of the characters engendered any sort of sympathy or feeling. In short, this movie lacked any of the suspense and thrill that the first movie provided from a story standpoint

Even the new dinosaurs were few and far between (although I really enjoyed the pterodactyls.) We got several brief shots of the new species and only 2 really were involved in the action.

As a scientist and former childhood paleontologist, the lack of any real scientific content (not that it had to be realistic, but logically formed i.e. how they built the dinos in #1 and malcom's chaos ramblings) was disappointing as well.

In short, the movie seemed to be nothing more than an excuse to trot dinos back on the scene to make some money. I hope that movie-goers don't fall for this trap again (although I did apparently)


I had been looking forward to this movie since Lost World came out. It didn't bother me that Lost World wasn't as intellectual as the original, and here, I was just hoping for a good monster movie. It was all about "Dinosaurs eat people." However, it was disappointing even on that level.

For starters, there were not enough people to eat, and while I'll keep it a secret how many people get eaten, it was not enough. Also, while there was no shortage of variety in the dinosaur community, there were not nearly "enough" dinosaurs. And many dinosaurs, like the spikey-back-and-has-a-club-on-its-tail-osaurus, just made cameos and didn't do much considering how cool they are.

(START SPOILERS) Then there were the Pterodactyls. The figures I've read put their body weight at about 15 pounds, while the movie made them look closer to 300. Worse, they didn't get to eat anybody, or even splatter them on the rocks by dropping them from high up. There was no ending to the movie, either, it was just, all of the sudden, credits. (END SPOILERS) I'm left wondering if the edition I saw was missing 40 minutes of film.

My only conclusion can be that they taught the Pterodactyls to stick their long beaks stealthily into your pockets and get your $7. Go rent the Carnosaur series; at least you won't be disappointed.


Number 1 was really great summer popcorn fun. It was the modern Jaws.

Number 2 is best summed up by Jeff Goldblum in the movie about being the stupidest idea in the history of stupid ideas (or something like that).

Number 3 is the obituary notice...JP has achieved all it ever will.

Once they realized they had no fresh ideas they should have just let sleeping dinos lie.

That said. Movie is ok if you don't mind knowing you already have seen it before.


How sad it is when a film as wonderful as "Jurassic Park" slowly nosedives into hackneyed and mediocre territory throughout its franchise. The newest sequel, Jurassic Park III, has given no thought to characters, a story, or pretty much a script, and instead relies on non-stop dinosaur action, which is neither thrilling nor very interesting to watch. The dinosaurs seemed to look incredibly fake compared to the 1993 technology, after 7 years of CGI advancements, it only gives you more of the feeling that the film was pumped out for the summer relying only on its name. The introduction of a pterodactyl does not a great movie make.

Go see "Shrek" again.


This movie was perhaps the biggest waste of 2 hours of my life. From the opening 10 minutes, I was ready to leave. The cliches there slapping you in the face, and the plot was not only predictably stupid, but full of more holes than swiss cheese. I am considering suing for that lost 2 hours, and $6.25 along with the fact that I am now stupider for watching this waste of film. The T-Rex's must be flipping in their graves, so to speak.


Did people expect "Jurassic Park 3" to be full of surprises? Not one moment of it is worth it. Many elements could easily scare people out of the movies...and it's not the dinos! Tea Leoni...I think she's a great actress, but I'm sorry to say that this time she reached the bottom line. I wonder if she happened to strain a vocal chord while shooting the movie....Laura Dern...she's ok, but why not be more noticeable in the movie, maybe exchange smart dialogs with Sam Neil. Alessandro Nivola - "have you ever heard of something called facial expression? Fellings, emotions..."..he's got to work harder on that! Sam Neil, no big deal. The soundtrack...got to change that record, or you get tired of it. My applause goes to William H. Macy, a talented actor who I've never seen playing a bad role....unfortunately he can't save the movie, nor can the well computer-created dinosaurs.


JP3 lacks the Spielberg touch. It's an all-out assault on the senses featuring "in your face" dinosaurs. Watching this film was a bit like a roller coaster ride from hell.

The script is lame; it simultaneously asks and then leaves too many questions unanswered. Also, we don't really get to appreciate the humans in the film for all they're worth. For example, William H. Macy is too great a talent to have to compete with dino-thugs for our attention. And Laura Dern was especially sympathetic in JP1; in this film, she's barely a blip on the radar screen.

The whole JP3 experience was t o o m u c h. Too much noise, too many surprises, too many characters dying off, too much predictable, gratuitous violence.

Word to the wise: vote yourself off this island.

(I rated it a 3 for special effects; I took off the other 7 points for having absolutely no originality.)


JURASSIC PARK III *___ Adventure

Sam Nell (The Dish), William Macy (Happy Texas, Fargo), TZ(a Leoni (Family Man)

A better title would be: ESCAPE FROM THE ISLAND OF REALLY MEAN DINOSAURS. But then no one would need to see the film. In this sequel, a rag-tag group pays a visit to the island of dinosaurs to rescue the teenage victim of a hang-gliding accident.

ACCESS HOLLYWOOD reports JP3 began filming without a completed script. That explains why the film seems to have little or no purpose other than to demonstrate state-of-the-art special effects. Sure, there are a few clever scenes and some moderately funny bits, but no meaningful plot line to tie them together. The dinosaur puppets and animation in JP3 are very good to excellent, and more numerous than ever. But the overall film experience can not hold a candle to the original JURASSIC PARK or even JP2.

JP3 is a mercifully short 90 minutes -- the last 10 minutes of which is credits. Even at that, I found myself frequently checking my wristwatch. The audience I saw it with left the theater in silence.

A better bet: see the movie LEGALLY BLONDE.

Dave


Although coming after three Star Wars, Krull & countless others, this movie would look outdated in the 1950s... 1 SFX mostly consist of 1970s videogames effects such as bolts etc; annoying after a short while. You also get a SFX creature that looks like a poor man's version of some tier-IV Harryhausen monster.

2 sets are mainly ruins in the countryside, with papier-mache temples and miniature cities or abodes that makes 1950s Japanese monster movies look like flawless perfection.

3 Plot is paper extra-thin...Hercules must find Zeus' seven golden thunderbolts stolen by conspiring gods & zombie tyrants.

4 action mainly consists in retarded, muscled-up Hercules ( check the variety of facial expressions ) wrestling cheap 1970s videogames effects.

5 acting award goes to Milly Carlucci (third Carlucci show-biz sister with Anna & Gabriella ), which says all.

6 SFX make other tier-II Italian salad bowl movies such as L'UMANOIDE & STAR CRASH look like masterpieces.

Well, considering that Ferrigno's main acting exploit consisted in impersonating a retarded green monster, wearing a whig and green espadrillas, we ought to be lenient.

Watch it & forget about it.


From the fertile imagination which brought you the irresistible HERCULES (1983), comes its even more preposterous (read goofier) sequel: right off the bat, we get another unwieldy "beginning of time" prologue which even contrives to completely contradict these same events as set up in the first film!; a condensed montage of highlights from same is soon followed by a SUPERMAN-like scrolling credits sequence. Narrative-wise, here we have four rebellious gods who steal Zeus' seven all-important (but poorly animated) thunderbolts  a crime which, for one thing, sets the moon careening on a collision course with Planet Earth! Faster than you can say "nepotism", Zeus (once again played as a white-haired bearded man by the relatively young Claudio Cassinelli) sends his champion  who has now rightfully taken his place among the elite thanks to, one presumes, the almighty tasks performed in the first film  to find his blooming thunderbolts and avert the calamities in store.

No sooner has Hercules (Lou Ferrigno  as if you didn't know) touched the earthly surface that he comes in contact with two attractive damsels (Milly Carlucci and Sonia Viviani) in need of his getting them out of distress!; the former (who would go on to become an Italian TV personality) seemingly has the ability to talk with the Little People(!)  which look uncannily like the tiny sisters from GODZILLA VS. MOTHRA (1964)!! Just so they can swindle as much unutilzed footage from the first film as is humanly possible, the divine quartet of villains resurrect good ol' King Minos (William Berger again) from his skeletal slumber and pit him once more against his eternal enemy. Typically, Hercules is made to encounter a number of potentially deadly foes including a Gorgon  an awfully underproduced sequence which ought to have led to a surefire plagiarism suit had the film-makers behind the much superior CLASH OF THE TITANS (1981) bothered to watch this flick (complete with the same "reflection in a shield" come-uppance and preceded by the muscleman letting the audience in on his tactics before executing them as if to show us how clever he is)!! And just to make it crystal clear that he wears his influences on his sleeve, Cozzi has Hercules and Minos turn into a cosmic version of "King Kong vs. Godzilla" for one of their battles and later still, King Kong gets to grips with a large snake, an encounter lifted straight out of the classic 1933 original. I swear it: this is the whole truth and nothing but the truth!

As had been the case with the first film, the cast is full of old reliables like the afore-mentioned Berger, Cassinelli and Venantino Venantini (as a sorcerer with a truly bad hair day) and up-and-coming starlets  not just Carlucci but also Maria Rosaria Omaggio (as a younger Hera!), Serena Grandi, Pamela Prati and, once again, Eva Robbins (whose costume here easily outcamps her appearance in the first film); for what it's worth, Pino Donaggio's score for this one is recycled from musical cues featured in his soundtrack for the previous film. If you have stuck with this review so far, you must have realized by now that this is one of those movies that is so unbelievably bad that a reviewer is forced to choose which course to take: either dismiss it in one unflattering sentence or spend an undeserving amount of time dissecting its flaws. I'm sure I've left out some of its ineptitudes but I wouldn't forgive myself if I failed to mention the single greatest laugh-out loud instance in the whole movie which almost made me fall off my chair (yes, it even surpassed the afore-mentioned animated titanic duel for me), namely the décor of the rebellious gods' lair which is in the shape of a giant marblekettle!!

At this stage, one might well wonder why I gave this film (and its predecessor) a rating instead of a (not entirely unjustified) BOMB; in the past, I've had various protracted online discussions on whether one's star rating of any particular film should reflect the overall artistic quality or its sheer entertainment value but these are two instances where I deemed it necessary to be consciously influenced by the latter in settling on my final rating. I don't know: maybe it's because I'm in a "sword-and-sandal" state-of-mind at the moment (with some 10 more respectable examples scheduled for the coming days!) but, after all, uncharacteristically for me, I decided to add these two films to my DVD collection simply based on the fun I had with them in this recent revisit  and that alone must count for something, no?


Looking for a REAL super bad movie? If you wanna have great fun, don't hesitate and check this one!

Ferrigno is incredibly bad but is also the best of this mediocrity.


The Adventures of Hercules has to be one of the lamest excuses for a movie I've yet run across. You would have to look far and wide to find anything that approaches the level of ineptness on display in this movie. Acting  Bad. Editing  Bad. Direction  Bad. Special Effects  Bad and Laughable. Plot  Bad. Lighting  Bad. Cinematography  Bad. Costume Design  Bad and Silly. Everything Else  Bad. Watching The Adventures of Hercules is about as enjoyable as a root canal. Even for a fan of bad movies, it's a real endurance test. This is one for either masochists or Lou Ferrigno completists (if any exist).

Eight things I learned from watching The Adventures of Hercules:

1. If you don't have the budget for real special effects, rotoscope a scene from the previous movie. It will look great - trust me.

2. When on a quest to recover Zeus' thunderbolts, take time for frequent stops to oil-up you body. It worked for Ferrigno and his two Amazon companions.

3. Any sword fight, use of magic, and just about all other day to day activities in ancient Greece created a sound very similar to a game of Pac Man or Asteroids.

4. Some of the ancient Greek gods dressed like extras from Star Wars.

5. If you need to pad your crappy movie's runtime, extend the title sequence by adding Star Trek style credits and throw in some overly grandiose music. It also helps if you've got a previous movie to pull scenes from.

6. Fight scenes move along much smoother if the bad guys attack Hercules one at a time.

7. William Berger did anything for money.

8. I didn't think it was possible, but The Adventures of Hercules makes the first film, Hercules (1983), look like an Academy Award winner.


Aya! If you are looking for special effects that are 10-20 years before its time, this is it. The glowing lightning bolts, fireballs, etc. look like they came from a cheesy 70's sci-fi flick. And yes, Hercules really grows; he's not being pushed on a cart closer to the camera!


Producers Golan and Globus should have been ashamed to release this piece of trash publicly. I know this is gonna sound cliched, but compared to this, the first "Hercules" of 1983 looks like a mature and exciting epic! This "sequel" is moronic, cheap, unredeemable, childish, phony, inept and BADLY ACTED. A landmark in bad cinema, and one of the few, few movies I've seen that REALLY deserve the lowest possible rating: no stars!


When at the very start of the film Paleontologist Donald Sutherland arrives at the Argyle family's house and it comes out he is the undeniable alibi for one of the members executed for murdering his mother two years ago your sensation is that you are about to watch a top thriller; an innocent man has been convicted and a killer is still around. But as the film runs along your disappointment increases inevitably.

"Ordeal by Innocence" is a dull and at times even boring film that doesn't raise at any moment. Nothing interesting happens all along and even the final revealing of the facts lacks surprise and intensity (wether you guessed or not).

Donald Sutherland, Cristopher Plummer, Faye Dunaway and Sarah Miles (far from her good performance in "Ryan's Daughter") just pass through their roles and not very enthusiastically either.

You won't miss much if you skip this one.


This is indeed one of the weakest films based on Agatha Christie's work, a lifeless, muddled mystery that clearly lacks the grace (and the budget!) of its predecessors ("Death On The Nile", "Evil Under The Sun") and Donald Sutherland is a pale shadow of Peter Ustinov as far as screen detectives go (of course, he is playing a character much less interesting than Poirot). The film manages to coast as far as it does on the strength of Christie's plot alone (all her plots have a certain amount of inherent interest), but the direction is hopelessly flat. (*1/2)


This film is on my list of worst movies ever made. The story is disconnected and it is difficult to understand what is going on or the reason for the characters' actions. All films need to have an inner logic, and this film just doesn't have it - the story doesn't make any sense.

To see Faye Dunaway, Christopher Plummer and Diana Quick wasting their talents in this movie is a crime. Faye Dunaway is the lucky one, because she plays the victim and gets killed early in the film. On the other hand, Donald Sutherland must be an amazing actor because he manages to look good in spite of bad directing and bad writing; his performance is believable and he manages to stay in character in spite of everything.

If Dame Agatha Christie were alive she would die laughing! The movie is that bad!


I have never seen so much talent and money used to produce anything so bad in my entire life! As stated in other commentaries, a who's who of talent, such as, Christopher Plummer, Faye Dunaway, Donald Sutherland, and many more were thrown together in a film that is not recognizable as an Agatha Christie story. I keep thinking of how it could be with the same cast, done the right way.

The film has even less intimacy than the Christopher Reeves 'Superman' movies. The large cast makes the slick production even less effective than in those films, because there is not enough time to get to know anyone. Dave Brubeck's progressive jazz soundtrack had me wondering if the wrong video was in the the case from the rental store. The music became more and more offensive as the plot progressed. It's hard to say whether the soundtrack or the annoying technique of repeating information from earlier scenes, was more offensive. From someone who has seen most Christie films (that's what attracted me to this, it was one of the few I hadn't seen) miss this one. It is not an Agatha Christie movie. Golan-Globus are better suited to producing flicks about big time wrestling, rather than the snug atmosphere of English mystery.


Donald Sutherland, an American paleontologist visiting England, picks up a hitch hiker one evening. Two years later, having discovered the man's address book in his car, he returns the book to the man's opulent home, only to find that the man's been hanged for murder. Nobody in or out of the family seems to care that the hitch hiker could not have committed the murder (of his own stepmother) because he was in Sutherland's car at the time of the crime.

Sutherland is the man's alibi but he's turned up too late. Out of a sense of guilt, he tracks down the real murderer.

Agatha Christie's mysteries usually involve a number of diverse people, all of them with one or another motive for the crime, all of them suspect, and a puzzle that depends on the construction of a strict time line. There is often, not always, a sidekick with whom the investigator can talk things over.

Because of the anfractuosity of the situation, due care must be taken to explain each element of the mystery to the reader or viewer. Redundancy is perfectly okay. We have to keep the characters and the time lines straight. Christie's movies are of the rare kind in which the use of famous faces in subordinate characters is actually useful. (Jacqueline de Bellefort? Oh, yes, that's Mia Farrow.) But this version of "Ordeal by Innocence" is a Golan-Globus production, with all that implies in the way of production values, a thoughtfully prepared script, and skill behind the camera.

The first few minutes, in which Sutherland discovers that an innocent man has been hanged, are fine. After that, everything is flung at the viewer in disjointed scraps, often in sudden flashbacks or in confusing voiceovers that tell us nothing. The script has a slapdash quality, as if thrown together by two hacks overnight. Few of the faces are familiar and that doesn't help at all. Everyone drops remarks about everyone else and the names become a hopeless jumble. The musical score consists of four instruments doing irritating atonal jazz riffs. Some nudity is thrown in to wake up the dozers in the audience. If Dame Agatha were alive, she'd be among the viewers who needed to be shaken awake.

Dullsville.


Nightkill stars Robert Mitchum as a world-weary private eye probing the case of a missing industrialist (Mike Connors). He is hired by Jaclyn Smith, the anxious wife of the missing man. What Jaclyn fails to inform Mitchum is that she knows full well her husband's whereabouts. After all, she was the one who helped her lover James Franciscus dispose of her wealthy hubby.

What more would expect from a rotten slasher film with Robert Mitchum? Mannix goes western, monkeys are abused, models lean against classic cars, and Smith is constantly upstaged by Sybil Danning until a giallo style wrap-up brings the whole sorry mess to a bitter end. This is BAD cinema. And this movie is sooooo poor. It makes it look like Halloween mixed up with Trick Or Treats. Avoid this.

Rated R for Graphic Violence, Nudity and Sexual Situations.


Filmed in Arizona by a mostly-foreign crew, "Nightkill" is one of the clumsiest crime dramas I have ever seen. Robert Mitchum (in a cowboy hat) trails recently-widowed Jaclyn Smith around, hoping to figure out if she had a hand in her husband's death. Jaclyn's wardrobe is of the Dale Evans variety and her dog is named "Cowboy"...seems as if somebody sure bought into the American myth that all westerners talk and dress like descendants of John Wayne! Screenplay by Joan Andre and John Case may have worked better if approached as parody; this mystery thriller just plays tame, with director Ted Post asleep at the controls. Don't be drawn in by the video box art of Jaclyn screaming while taking a shower. She does indeed take a shower in this film, but it is not revealing (nor does it further the murky plot one iota). NO STARS from ****


Veteran TV director Ted Post treats us to a plodding, confused and ultimately pointless story lifted from Column B of the Harold Robbins Big Book Of Plots. Set against a smoggy Phoenix skyline, post-Charlies Angles Jaclyn Smith takes a star turn as "the woman whose eyes are mysteriously shadowed at all times" while JFK impersonator James Franciscus lounges around the fringes.

Mannix goes western, monkeys are abused, models lean against classic cars, and Smith is constantly upstaged by Sybil Danning until a giallo style wrap-up brings the whole sorry mess to a bitter end.

Oh yeah, and Bob Mitchum is in there too. Somewhere.


The Bridge At Remagen contains some of the most preposterous war time screenplay I've ever seen. Aside from the acting, which is wooden, no tank commander attacks with his tanks parked in nice neat rows, up the middle of roads, and with troops bunched all together with their arms not at the ready. The constant suicidal behavior set off my "tilt switch" so often I found it impossible to enjoy the movie. Apparently the screen writers and director have never been through actual warfare and never bothered to bring in an expert who had. This movie is the very antithesis of the excellent detail in Saving Private Ryan. Unless you are under 7 years old, I recommend watching something else.

GB


CAUTION SPOILER: At the end of the movie it is announced that the bridge collapsed just a few days after it was captured. The impression is that the attack was all for nothing. In reality, taking the bridge at Remagen was the last important victory for the Western Allies. It was the crossing of the Rhine that the Allies had been trying to achieve for six months. Because the Remagen Bridge was taken, the war ended in just a few weeks.

The bridge only need to last for a day after it was captured. This was enough time for the Americans to send combat engineers and a large protective force to the other side, and they could then start building a series of pontoon bridges. The taking of the bridge was a complete success, and meant the that the end of the war was near, and would not last through the summer. Contrary to the cynical nature of the film, the victory was heralded with elation by the troops who did it. They knew how vital the battle was.

This film has little to do with real history. It was more a reflection of the cynical nature of the time in which it was produced.


This is a family movie that was broadcast on my local ITV station at 1.00 am a couple of nights ago . This might be a strange decision on the part of the schedulers but THE REAL HOWARD SPITZ is a rather strange film , strange in the way it doesn't want to upset its audience . Come on there's nothing kids like more than sadism and that's why Roald Dahl was such a popular author for children . It also explains why DOCTOR WHO was such a successful show across the world . In this screenplay you're just dying for pulp fiction author to do something nasty to the kids but this doesn't happen . I'm not advocating child abuse but to see Howard Spitz lose his rag at the little ones would have made the movie rather better . Can you imagine how much worse KINDERGARTEN COP would have been if the producers had gone all PC ? I mean if you're making a movie centered around a children's author who hates children shouldn't the story show and not tell ?

Much of the problem lies with director Vadim Jean and you do get the feeling he doesn't know how to handle the material which is bad news for the movie . As someone previously noted the soundtrack is haphazard and Kelsey Grammar is very wooden . I guess he was trying to play it dead pan just like in that show he's famous for but it fails to work here and there's many scenes with quiet ridiculous camera angles which seem unintentional but which are very distracting . But at the end of the day the main problem remains that the potential is ruined because no one wanted to offend the audiences sensibilities


I had to see this on the British Airways plane. It was terribly bad acting and a dumb story. Not even a kid would enjoy this. Something to switch off if possible.


From time to time it's very advisable for the aristocracy to watch some silent film about the harsh life of the common people in order to remind themselves of the privileges and the comfortable life that they have enjoyed since the beginning of mankind or even before in comparison with the complicated and hard work that common people have to endure everyday since the aristocrats rule the world.

And that's what happens in "The Love Light", the first film directed by Dame France Marion who will be famous afterwards in the silent and talkie world thanks overall to her work as a screenwriter; better for her, certainly, because her career as a film director doesn't impress this German count.

The film tells the story of Dame Angela Carlotti ( Dame Mary Pickford ) a merry Italian girl who lives surrounded by a "picturesque squalor" ( an important difference of opinion between upper and low classes; aristocrats prefers to live surrounded by "picturesque luxury" ); she has two brothers and a secret admirer but all she gives him in return is indifference. Destiny begins to work hard and pretty soon war is declared and Dame Angela's two brothers enlist and in the next reel both are dead. But destiny is even crueller and Dame Angela meanwhile falls in love with a German!! And to make things worse, she doesn't know that her Teutonic sweetie is a spy and that the light signals that she sends to him every night from the lighthouse she maintains thinking that is a love signal, don't mean "Ich Liebe Dich" but "Sink Any Damn Italian Boat At Sea"

Fortunately for Dame Angela, pretty soon her sweetie German spy will be found by the neighbours in her house in which she was hiding him ( a not strange fact, indeed, because it is not an easy task for a German to go unnoticed ) but the German spy will prefer to die before being captured by those Italians.

From that German love, a half-Teutonic baby will born ( the wicked Destiny at full speed ) but a greedy neighbour who has a particular idea of motherhood will carry away her son with the consent of a Catholic nun who has taken the Council of Trent to extremes a fact that will put Dame Angela at the verge of insanity.

But meanwhile Dame Angela's secret admirer has returned from the war and you can think that finally Dame Angela's sorrowful life will improve; a tremendous mistake because Destiny has in store for her that the returned soldier is blind. But as they say in Germany, it may be a blessing in disguise and finally Dame Angela will recover her son and will start a new life with her blind sweetie in a poor Italian village in what it is supposed to be a happy ending for the common people.

As this German count said before, it was much better for Dame Frances Marion that she continued her career as a screenwriter, because as can be seen in "The Love Light", she had a lot of imagination to invent incredible stories, ja wohl! but a completely different subject is to direct films and her silent debut lacks emotion and rhythm in spite of the effort of Dame Pickford to involve the audience with her many disgraces. The nonexistent film narrative causes indifference in the spectator making this the kind of film where only Dame Pickford herself provides the interest and not her circumstances.

And now, if you'll allow me, I must temporarily take my leave because this German Count must send Morse signals from the Schloss north tower to one of his Teutonic rich heiress.


What if someone made a horror movie that was completely devoid of plot?

Well, I think it would probably end up a little bit like this one. I don't think I've ever seen a move was so steady it its slide from hackneyed (at the beginning) to complete crap (by the end). I only stuck with it, because I kept thinking it couldn't possibly get worse. Well, up until the very end, "Necrophagus"/"Graveyard of Horror" proved me wrong.

Who would have suspected that a movie with an undead lizard-man, evil grave-robbing cultists, and mad scientists tossed in for no discernible reason could suck this bad? One would think there'd at least be some humor value... but not here.


The English translation of the title on the DVD version of this film is "Graveyard of Horrors," but I think that must be an error. It should have been called "Graveyard of Horribles." Horrible acting, horrible editing, horrible story, and horrible music all make this a horrible film best left in a horrible graveyard.

Horrible.


This failed exercise in satire or commentary on the human condition easily earned a place as one of the 10 worst movies I've ever seen. I'm seriously considering buying a copy, if I can find one dirt cheap, to chase away unwanted company. It's honestly that bad. I view it as some kind of anti-personnel weapon. If you're the kind of person who just has to see a train wreck to witness the carnage, then this movie is a gem. Just to be fair, Kelsey Grammar's character has 1 line that almost works, but doesn't quite. Other than that everything in this movie strives to be insightful, but misses the mark by approximately the distance between earth and the nearest pair of colliding galaxies. I usually can appreciate a book or movie where the protagonist suffers from some sort of existential angst, but the angst presented here is so unbelievable and over the top, and the movie doesn't even address the nonsense it presents in any valuable way. If you are familiar with the term "word vomit" then you may get some picture of the cinematrocity. Oh, and the narrative structure is ill conceived, pretentious and amateurish. It has failed on both style and substance. If you really hate someone, invite them over for a double feature of this movie and "The Terror of Tiny Town," an all midget western from the 1930's and put them in restraints with their eyes forced open "A Clockwork Orange" style. But that probably violates some provision in the Geneva Conventions.


This is one of those strange, self-important, self-indulgent movies which tries too hard to be profound. It isn't. Instead, it spouts cliches that try to pass for Profundity. Typical is the scene where Peter (Kelsey Grammer) explains to protagonist and best friend Adam (Dwier Brown) how man starts life breast feeding, then moves on to sucking the breast of his girlfriend, and finally his wife, thus concluding ultimately that life sucks. So deep. We are treated to a variety of characters who offer their perspective of life, the universe, etc. during Adam's travels through the Mojave Desert on foot. (He abruptly leaves L.A. the day of his wedding and his family, friends, and fiance assume he's dead when his car was found in a military test range smashed by a rocket.) Some characters are more entertaining than others. The best by far is an escapee from a mental hospital who only speaks through the voices of others. The actor, James Kevin Ward, does some great impressions, including Nicholson, Popeye, and several characters from the original Star Trek. But once the interesting characters leave the screen, we're stuck with Adam again and his pursuit of the profound. It's a long trip, which drags in many places. In fact, it's the longest hour and a half movie I've ever seen. And the finale hardly makes it seem worth while, at all.

I discovered this movie playing on HBO one day by waking up too early and clicking on the TV. That'll learn me. Next time I'll try harder to sleep in.