I managed to avoid reading Hemingway in college. From what I could tell, along with his reductivist verbiage, he offered reductivist story lines. This film-transfiguration of AF2A into a simplistic, hoary, belabored narrative, does not disabuse me of my suspicions: A guy who barely sees action on the European battlefield (Hudson) falls in with a nurse (Jones), and they conspire to spend time together. Hemingway's big contribution to narrative was the romantic travelogue? Who knows what these two lovers have in common? They're so utterly generic. The movie never even brings up the utter irresponsibility it takes to abandon the front in favor of a lovers' adventure. The two have a season on the Alps, straight out of a J. Crew catalog. A number of better scenes are undermined by corny, conventional melodrama elsewhere. The movie keeps piling on tiny, improbable, unspecific details that fight the epic treatment. The cavernous hospital that Miss Barkley works in is virtually empty, so that no secondary plot line can possibly distract from the flimsy main story. Complicated, it is not.

The camera work is better than average, with some amazing location photography. Director Charles Vidor (or maybe Huston?) does striking things in the first hour with an on-location, wide-screen camera... there are no second unit cop-outs. Vidor shows massive, panoramic tableaux, pans over a line of hundreds of soldiers trooping through the mountains; and then with a 90 degree swivel of his camera catches up with Hudson's ambulance barreling down on him.

Hudson looks great. He's a better actor than he gets credit for, but with unshaped material like this, he can become very mechanical. Mercedes McCambridge plays a one-dimensional shrew. Jennifer Jones is puffy and miscast in the lackluster female lead. The movie is best when she's off screen. The love scenes are about as affecting as a coffee commercial.


For producer David O. Selznick, no one director would ever do. Hence, on "A Farewell to Arms" (1957) we get two  Charles Vidor and John Huston. Though both men were quite accomplished in their own right, neither could make head or tail of this disastrous remake of Hemmingway's magnum opus. Hemmingway in general has never translated well from book to screen. But under Selznick's zeal to transform it into his next 'Gone With The Wind' the excursion is both punishing and exhaustive. At this point in Selznick's career, he was no longer the titan who could take "box office poison" and transform it into Gone With The Wind. Tired, frail, minus his studio, and, with an impending sense that his second marriage to Jennifer Jones might have been a mistake, Selznick handed the creative reigns of this flick over to Fox Studios  but he kept enough of himself in it to become a damn nuisance on the set.

By now one is, or should be familiar with the bittersweet tragic love story of a nurse, Catharine Barkley (Jennifer Jones) and her soldier hero, Lt. Frederick Henry (Rock Hudson). Their passion is supposed to serve as the stabilizing force for what is essentially a war correspondent's tale with romanticism thrown in for good measure. But the chemistry between Hudson and Jones is both turgid and dull. In the final reel, Jones' facial contortions during child birth are so bad I am surprised that neither director opted to cut them from the general release. Part of the problem with Jones is that at thirty-eight she's far too wise to play the optimistic Catharine with any great conviction. Yet, older actresses have frequently managed to make an audience forget discrepancies in age. Not so with Jones. One is painfully aware that she doesn't fit the bill in either acting chops or years invested on this planet. Hudson's laconic charm is hopelessly out of touch with to stoicism of an army soldier whose heart is broken but head remains strong. The supporting cast is peppered with such luminaries as Vittorio De Sica and Mercedes McCambridge, but these are wasted bits of nonsense that in no way reflect upon the formidable talents of either actor and best made evident elsewhere in their canons of film making.

The anamorphic picture element for "A Farewell to Arms" looks good enough, though there's just a bit too much film grain present in certain scenes for this reviewer's liking. Overall, colors are subtle and muted, though balanced in accordance with the DeLuxe color processing employed at this time. Some fading is evident. Flesh tones don't appear very natural. Contrast levels are a tad weak. Blacks are generally solid. Whites are almost clean. There's not much to recommend this film sonically. It's essentially a wordy picture with gun shots as a backdrop. There are no extras.


This is by far the worst Hemingway adaptation ever. Rock Hudson was badly miscast and entirely unbelievable as a hard-bitten soldier/adventurer drawn to war. Jennifer Jones was far too old for her part and Vittorio de Sica seemed to think he was acting in some other movie altogether. They tried to make a large-scale epic out of a low-key romantic novel and the result is terrible. As if that were not enough the whole thing is so slow, overlong and dated that it is practically unwatchable. Rock must have kicked himself for turning down "Sayonara" and "Ben Hur" in order to make this ghastly crap.

0/10. To be avoided.


Being a huge Laura Gemser fan, I picked this up at a rental outlet just to see another Emanuelle film. Boy, did I make a mistake!

EMANUELLE IN EGYPT has nothing to do with Emanuelle. Laura Gemser is in it along with her husband Gabriele Tinti, but that is the only connection to Emanuelle. Here, Laura plays "Laura" (original, huh?) a beautiful supermodel who goes to visit her wealthy friend Pia (Annie Belle) in Egypt. In tow are her a**hole photographer Carlo (a haggard-looking Gabriele Tinti) and some blonde woman who is never named. Also living in Pia's mansion is Horatio (the sexy but dumb Al Cliver), a mystique who speaks nothing but nonsense. Arriving for the weekend are Pia's two daughters, one a short-haired lesbian and the other a brunette. Lots of sex is implied, but hardly shown. One good-looking actor plays Ali, the Egyptian servant, who gets lucky with three of the women in the mansion. Laura has sex with the lesbian, the lesbian has sex with Horatio, Pia and the blonde have sex with Horatio at an Egyptian orgy, Laura drinks goats' blood and is possessed during an Egyptian ceremony, Carlo rapes Laura. It all happens with so little flair that EMANUELLE IN EGYPT is one of the worst movies I've ever seen. Far from erotic, even the actors themselves look bored during their sex scenes.

Considering there were two famous couples in this film (Laura and Gabriele & Al and Annie), the number of available sex scenes are uncountable. Instead, a film that offers a top-notch Eurocult cast and never delivers the goods will piss every viewer off, except the hardcore Laura Gemser completist. Otherwise, steer clear of EMANUELLE IN EGYPT!


overrated, poorly written, badly acted. did the academy even watch this? i guess not. the political content guaranteed it an Oscar nomination -- indo -pak border -- a little boy , terrorism. anything with the word "terrorist" gets attention in

this post 9-11 world. its like holocaust movies that are guaranteed an Oscar nomination irrespective of their merits.

and please cinematography does not mean shooting landscapes which are pretty in the first place. you have to be a rotten shooter to screw up making the desert pretty. at least this didn't win the Oscar. they got that right at least. would have been a travesty.


This film truly was poor. I went to the theatre expecting something exciting, and instead was afforded the opportunity to hone my "guess the next plot twist before it happens" skills. Seriously, the plot was written with an extra thick crayon so everyone could see. Nothing was truly shocking. In fact, even the gore was met with such complete suspension of belief that it really didn't add up to much.

The excessive wise cracking and cops talking shop at the crime scenes made it seem all the more phony. And the scene where Lambert's character is struggling with the clues and reaches his "investigative epiphany" goes to great lengths to indicate the level of intellect expected from the audience - little.

Probably the most annoying aspect of the cinematography was the "X-Files" treatment: Every building in the film, whether it's the precinct building, or a house at noon, or a hospital, was suffering from a lack of any discernible lighting (not to mention a lack of 'patients' in the case of the hospital). I don't recall a single scene when someone flipped on a light switch. It sure would have been nice.

Mr. Lambert really isn't an Oscar-grade actor, so I suppose you have to take this film for what it's worth. In the end, I've reached the conclusion that the only thing that would make this film seem more entertaining is to watch it after watching "The Warriors". Otherwise, you're left with an effort that is dull and unoriginal, and nowhere near the equal of films of the genre such as "Silence of the Lambs".


OK. First said, I just wanted to check whether this movie has an average rating below or exactly -1. But 5,9. This is sicker than any of the killers' proceedings -,- . That made me curious what people wrote here.. which in the end made me set up an account to give my 2cents of truth into this "well of delusion" i find here.

How dare you guys even MENTION this movie in the same sentences as e.g. Seven? The only thing they got in common is that they show various crime-scenes. That-is-it. And "Best thriller of 1999!" ? have you even watched another movie form that year? Or any other movie in your life at all? 1999 is not a year which people are reminded of by RESURRECTION... what's with actual MOVIES like 8mm, Eyes wide shut, Arlington Road, Double Jeopardy? (Theyre actually more a "thriller" than this one could ever be..). Resurrection does not even deserve to be dedicated to A SECOND of 1999.

Really, you guys can't be serious. I watched that movie yesterday with my girlfriend, highly recommended by a friend of her. A "great film with Christopher Lambert"! ...which I had not yet seen? Hmm..

Well, first look on the Covers: OK, nothing special. At second glimpse you don't need to have supernatural powers to be aware that they simply mirrored Lambert's head, clipped his nose 'n this&that, then made a fancy negative pattern on top of it, to get the killers image on the COVER. You could even think they had some apprentice eat a gallon of marshmallows just to caption that creepy (booooh! -.- ) mouth.. whatever. Turned it around and the plot starts with.. "it's raining in Chicago... blabber blabber". Come on, a six year old could have made that snippet sound more exciting. Now, with this enormous excitement coming from the movies terrific presentation -.- , you absolutely wanna start watching it. Because it can't be that bad, it still is Christopher Lambert. That assumption of mine was proved wrong. WIth "proven wrong" i mean it was brutally executed by a deadly mix of the worst imaginable acting ever known to mankind (every actor, but the tops are the "i can do 1-Liners!" police chief, Prudhommes Wife __ actually a better detective than Prudhomme when she recombines several incidents to a yet ABSOLUTELY UNKNOWN hint in the case!!!! -.- __ and .. yes.. Prudhomme himself) featuring a squadron of inhuman fake feelings, logic errors in a 1-minute-cycle, light-years far-fetched conclusions which in my point-of-view represent an insult to any thinking human being and last but not least a camera-man who obviously was a hyperventilating kangaroo. Oh well, and if you do not completely shut down your brains (these aren't premises to watch it) then you should know who is who and what is what after max. 30minutes, simply because you know ANY scene after the first. That is thrilling. Thrilling because this movie almost makes you think you can tell the future.

The bottom line: This is BY FAR the worst movie I can remember. Trust me, I've seen many horrible movies which in some way were at least only bad attempts or bad copies of another movie. Resurrection however, is the best example on how to fail in every aspect possible. It was so bad that after being shocked by its unimaginably low quality in e-v-e-r-y-t-h-i-n-g, I laughed more often than in any recent comedy, simply because I was fascinated by the crew's brazenness to publish such an -extraordinary- film strip. Good thing for Lambert he was in Highlander:Endgame a year later, thus he can be pardoned. ;^O

Anyhow, I DO recommend watching this movie to EVERYONE. In the end, we had great fun watching it :^D. I guarantee you, after you completely watched Resurrection (be brave, you can do it!) , you will worship the level of acting in any given daily soap.

Or just go 'n watch highlander one more time... that's what I'm gonna do.


A bare-faced rip-off of Se7en and not fit to clean its shoes. The word 'predictable' must have invented for just such an occasion as this. Lambert is wooden, as always (his moments of 'emotion' are laughable, as is his accent). The 'climax' is not that at all as we've had so many signals, and by the end we're simply immune to flesh, rotting and otherwise. Altogether a real mess.


If I didn't know any better, I would have thought Resurrection was made in the late 80's/early 90's, when crap sold as film in Hollywood.

I don't understand why people like Christopher Lambert. He speaks like he's reading off of cue cards and turns into a fountain whenever he has to emote. He was easily the movie's weakest aspect. The other actors were OK, nothing horrible.

It's easy to see where the majority of the budget went: the special effects. The killings look pretty professional, but hardly make up for the film's dullness.

I wouldn't go as far as to say Resurrection is a carbon copy of Se7en, but it certainly bears a certain resemblance to it. Centering on a religious-minded murderer on a modern crusade, the detectives investigating his work have to rely on Bible passages and Christian history to piece together the killer's puzzle. Resurrection, however, is bereft of Se7en's clever storytelling, cinematography, acting...well, everything that makes it good. Instead, Resurrection lies to the audience and uses the Scooby Doo method of mystery to surprise it.

In conclusion, Resurrection was about as bad as I expected it to be. I almost feel bad for criticizing this movie since I knew it would be bad going in, but...sue me.


Predictable, gory, over-gimmicky, mediocre. Don't waste your time - there are many much better movies out there.

Resurrection starts out OK but the plot quickly becomes repetitive. My interest level fell off steadily. By the end of the movie I was just glad it was finally over. The characters never fully developed. The cinematography is muddy and the quick change POV rotations - while impressive in 1999 perhaps, presently merely serve to label the movie as attempting to substitute gee whiz flash for plot and character substance. The film shooting gimmicks serve some purpose (convey tension and anxiety) but are constantly overused and ultimately become counterproductive. A shame overall - the film/story obviously had potential and the producers/directors and actors obviously have technical skill. A disappointment.


I normally love Jackie Chan movies but this one was terrible. There are only 2 or 3 fight scenes all of which are up to normal standard more or less. The bad thing about this movie is it focuses a lot on car chasing/racing. The car chase isn't so bad (though not as exciting as fighting) but the car racing at the end is exceptionally boring. Basically it takes all of things that make a Jackie Chan film a Jackie Chan film and leaves out everything except Jackie Chan. Even the traditional outtakes at the end lack their usual humour.

I suppose to a certain extent it was made worse by the fact I saw one of those horrible dubbed versions. I usually try to see the subtitled version...I wish I could understand Chinese.

I've only seen one Jackie film worse that this one and that was one of his early forays into Hollywood films that didn't turn out so well.

Avoid unless really curious or a lover of motor sports.


"Thunderbolt" is probably Jackie Chan's worst movie since "The Protector" in 1985. Yes, I know that nobody watches his movies for their stories, but the plotting of this one is unusually lame, even by his standards, and while the fight choreography IS up to his standards, the fight scenes (the whole two of them) are ruined, as others have mentioned, by the frenetic, distracting camerawork. Even the most serious Jackie Chan fans shouldn't really bother with this offensively haphazard, stunt-and-plug-filled garbage. Anita Yuen's cute and perky performance is one of the few redeeming virtues. For a good "serious Jackie" movie, I recommend "Crime Story". (*1/2)


I just cant see what everyone sees in this movie. The acting is just awful, the choice of music is, mildly putting it, peculiar, there arent enough fighting scenes, the plot is non-existent and whatever small entertainment one could get from this film is ruined by the annoying way some of the movie is filmed and gives you a splitting headace.


Jackie Chan movies are typical examples of how offer is bigger than demand.Well,to be honest,which demand?In this one Jackie Chan is whatever his name is in this one,I doubt if he even knows,and he is some kind of race car driver.Well,he drives 10 miles an hour and then the footage is sped up,that way I can do all the stunts myself as well.During the great finale,in which Jackie Chan wants to arrest the bad guy by beating him in a race,we finally get to see how shoddy this production really is.Chan's fighting,especially in the casino scene is decent,but when we're talking about special effects,dear Lord.And must everyone crash in this race?That's just stupid.And here it's really not safe for the drivers,there's not even a concrete wall in the neighborhood.And don't get me started on what kind of awful story this has,I mean,it's Hongkong,it was probably written at gun point by eight-year-olds,but still,what a mess.I like Chan as much as the next guy,perhaps more since I saw "Rush Hour",but his agent's retarded cousin really needs to pick his projects better.


Potential viewers be warned, the current IMDb viewer rating for "Tomorrow at Seven" is an anomaly of low voter turnout. It has an interesting premise, a killer leaves an Ace of Spades calling card at the scene of his crimes, while alerting the victim in advance. The execution falls flat however, and to say that the movie has it's share of plot holes would be to imply that there actually is a plot.

Chester Morris portrays mystery writer Neil Broderick, weaving elements of actual murders by the Ace of Spades killer into his latest novel. Broderick intends to interview a wealthy businessman for his book, but first he has to get past the man's eccentric secretary - "If you line his relatives up, you'd have enough nuts to hold a Ford together". That line unceremoniously endears him to the "nut's" daughter Martha (Vivienne Osborne), who offers to make the introductions.

Broderick meets Thornton Drake (Henry Stephenson) just as the latter is about to complete a jigsaw puzzle delivered by a courier that morning. The only remaining pieces, as we learn in the following scene, form the bold, black shape of the Ace of Spades containing the words "At Seven Tomorrow Night". Now what person putting together a puzzle doesn't use the pieces with contrasting colors FIRST!

Initially I was intrigued by the appearance of Frank McHugh and Allen Jenkins in their roles as a pair of police detectives summoned to the Drake residence. Generally, their characters are colorful enough to offer genuine comic relief, but here they're just plain annoying. McHugh's Clancy in particular winds up shouting objections to inane comments made by his partner Dugan, and both usually head in the opposite direction when real trouble might turn up.

Now here's a question - in light of the identity of the Ace killer, why would he have invited a novelist and a pair of cops that he just met, on a flight to his Louisiana plantation? Especially when at seven o'clock, all parties would be a captive audience aboard the plane when the first murder is committed. It's not Drake however who's dead, but his secretary Austin Winters (Grant Mitchell). The early suspicion falls on pilot Henderson (Cornelius Keefe) following a lights out scene, but Henderson still hasn't reported the murder to his supervisor until well after he arrives at Drake's plantation with everyone else. Can you imagine anyone trying to get away with that today, unless your name was Ted Kennedy?

With the cause of death yet to be determined, the local coroner is called in, but the first one that shows up (a Broderick accomplice) is a phony. Yet, when the real coroner shows up, he simply disappears immediately after! In a second dark out scene, a letter from the murder victim Austin Winters is about to be read. It winds up missing when the lights return, and because it may point to the murderer, it becomes a clue that must be retrieved. So where was the letter? Winters' daughter Martha grabbed it and placed in on the mantle of the living room! How much thought was put into this?

Obviously, the entire affair is so inane that Morris' character solves the case rather easily. Even though the film comes in at just about an hour, it becomes almost a chore to watch with all the nonsense going on. There's really only one humorous moment worth repeating; while aboard the plane, the detectives have this exchange: Dugan - "Hey Clancy, how often do these things fall?" Clancy - "Once!"

Except for McHugh and Jenkins, I can't say I've seen any of the other players in films of the era, though I'm a fan of most "B" grade mystery movies from the '30's through the '50's. Fortunately, the pair fares much better backing up Humphrey Bogart in a goofy 1938 gem - "Swing Your Lady", where the laughs are intentional. The best I can offer about "Tomorrow at Seven" is a quote from Martha Winters about midway though this turkey - "This is just a silly waste of time".


The first twenty-five minutes stand out as possibly the worst in modern British film. Director/adapter William Cartlidge has treated Wilde's original with such reverence that he seems to have completely ignored the needs of a cinematic audience. Thankfully the quality of the direction and editing improves significantly after the first half hour, but by then the damage has been done. Of the actors, Prunella Scales and Robert Hardy wipe the floor with the rest of the cast every time they are on screen. The other exceptions are Jonathan Firth's Arthur and Karen Hayley's Mabel, who are given enough latitude to deliver their lines with the true comic sense which Wilde intended. The ostensible leads, James Wilby and Trevyn McDowell, are in comparison lacklustre and wooden. In an obvious attempt to eke every penny out a meagre budget, the play has been nominally updated to the 1990's, but in conjunction with the original script the effect is more of a badly script 1970s TV drama. True moments of comedy are few and far between, but when they arrive are highly amusing - a sign, maybe, that more judicious pruning of the rest of the play might have led to a better paced, more even film.


This should have rocked. VH1 moved away from the traditional divas (Whitney Houston, Celine Dion, etc.) that had made the 2003 show so stale. Sadly the move backfired. The show had no MC keeping the show together. Queen Latifah did a fantastic show at the 2003 Divas. The show kicked of with a horrific rendition of Lady Marmalade featuring Patti Labelle, Cyndi Lauper, and Jessica Simpson. Okay in the studio with some control they can all sound great.

However, when they are competing with each other (why?) it just sounds torturous! Jessica Simpson has the most bizarre facial expressions when she sings that i've ever witnessed! Cyndi Lauper also performed Girl Just Wanna Have Fun. That wasn't as bad but it was hardly impressive. The worst was yet to come! Cyndi and Patti Labelle teamed up to perform Cyndi's hit 'Time After Time'. It was acoustic, and didn't fit in with the rest of the show. Still it could've been okay if they both hadn't insisted on squealing like mamed animals. It was just dire.

Debbie Harry (from Blondie) is always cool. She has a style of her own and although maybe she can't compete vocally with a many of the divas although she certainly can sing very well. Debbie came out and performed Blondie's #1 hit 'Rapture'. With some lovely vocals. She really hit the notes perfectly. She looked stunning. Rapper Eve provided a new, but sadly inferior rap. It was good. Debbie's next performance was a team-up with newcomer Joss Stone. They performed the Blondie hit 'One Way Or Another'. I think Joss misunderstood the style of the song and just shouted over Debbie. A rather sad bit was when Debbie tried and failed to match her shouty style which spoiled it a bit. She should've just let Joss get on with her totally inappropriate warballing. The whole of Blondie performed this track. The final track Debbie performed was Blondie's massive hit 'Call Me'. It was pretty poor. Not Debbie's fault because you just couldn't hear her. The sound was atrocious all the way through the show.

Joss Stone also performed a few songs on her own. They were quite well done. Ashanti also showed up to perform two inexplicable cover versions. Firstly she did Diana Ross' 'I'm Coming Out', and then Chaka Khan's 'Ain't Nobody'. She is not a diva! She can sing to an extent but she has no presence whatsoever. Why not just get the real singers in. Chaka was even interviewed on the show....

Gladys Knight showed up and did a medley. It was very good. She was probably the best bit of the show. I don't know much about her other than she is a seasoned performer in Las Vegas and her experience and class really shone through. Patti Labelle fitted in another performance this time her 80's hit 'New Attitude'. It was the finale and it was okay but it was too little to late. This was one big dud. Better luck next time VH1.

The version I saw was a heavily edited 55min version which was shown on VH1 in the UK. If these were the best bits.....


I like the most of the Full Moon Pictures so I ordered this movie from the USA, because in Germany you can't get it anywhere. I thought it would be so nice and amusing like the Subspecies or Puppetmaster Series, because they were full of atmosphere.

I was glad when the movie finally arrived.

But after watching this cheesy movie, I was very disappointed. The actors ( I think you can't even say actors) are boring and untalented. The story was a poor performance and even the set and the monster were very cheap and lousy.

I hope no one ever make a sequel or remake of this terrible movie. :-)


The creature? Yeah, it and the movie it stars in. Hell would seem infinitely more frightening if the damned were forced to watch this for all eternity. Six college students shack up in a condemned hospital to save money and end up victims of an ancient monster who must claim five victims before it returns to "the shadowy world from which it came!" Other than having major logic and coherence problems (plus the fact it appears to be unfinished), this disaster is terribly acted, written, edited (by J.R. Bookwalter) and directed, and the make-up FX are almost nonexistent. It's also significantly shorter than it claims (at only 80 minutes), but I'm not complaining. It's the worst movie I've seen from executive producer Charles Band's Full Moon productions and boy is that BAD!

To note, I almost didn't bother with a review, but this has gotten inexplicably good reviews on here and I figured a varying opinion was in order. Proceed with caution!


Hunk of trash only the Full Moon Studios could make has a group of college kids, staying for free in an old hospital with no one knowing, as a demonic creature with two faces(barely visible the entire film because of incomprehensible lighting)passes through walls killing each member who has a certain sheet of paper with ancient markings. Someone amongst them(it won't be too hard to prove, but a slight twist is so uninspiringly revealed and limply executed you'll just scoff)is the mastermind behind who the beast kills and must be revealed before it kills everyone.

Cheap, badly acted mess has a "That's it?!" kind of weak ending that'll have you exasperated at why you just wasted your time. Tanya Dempsey, who couldn't act her way through a wet paper sack, has the heroine duties as the newest member of the college rooming bunch named Clark. Oh, and the title refers to the sound the beast makes before it attacks it's next victim.


Sometimes Full Moon makes entertaining movies. This isn't one of them. Full Moon is like a low-key Troma. Their movies aren't as violent or off the wall, but they're usually just as devoid of talent. The acting in this movie isn't terrible but the script is pretty bad, and overall it's pretty boring and it doesn't even contain any nudity (like many Full Moon movies) to somewhat redeem it. Skip this one, and go rent "Head of the Family".


I don't believe I've seen a horror movie this bad since...hell, I don't believe I've ever seen a horror movie this bad. The acting alone was enough to make one cringe. The bad acting went way beyond horror film cheesy. It was just plain awful. And did you check out those god awful special effects? When the demon (which looked more like a cheaply constructed puppet) came out of the wall I couldn't tell if I was supposed to be frightened, or laughing my ass off. As a huge fan of the horror genre, this film was more than mildly disappointing. I couldn't help but notice the director is from Portland, OR, which just happens to be my own hometown. I must say I'm deeply ashamed. If I could, I'd give this film a negative 500.


The best thing about Shrieker is the dialogue. Like Scream and I Know What You Did Last Summer, this movie is cognizant of the conventions of this type of horror movie and manages to come up with a few good lines and scenes that play on those conventions. Unfortunately, Shrieker is just boring. The plot is your basic Ten Little Indians whodunnit with a monster controlled by one of the suspects/victims. You know from the beginning that each of the characters will get bumped off until only the hero(ine) is left to defeat the evil. And this is exactly what happens. Absolutely no surprises and no tension. Production values and acting were ok, but I had no motivation to watch to the end (although I did) because I already knew how the end scene would play out. The ending did surprise me a bit, because it managed to fizzle out, literally, instead of throwing out a bucket of special effects. Maybe the special effects budget had been spent up by the end.


SHRIEKER is a Full Moon production. I knew what to expect (very little quality) but I didn't expect this to be as painful as SHRIEKER was to watch.

It's just awful. Bad acting, confusing script and direction. Annoying characters I wanted to kill. The whole thing was probably made in one week. I've seen episodes of CHARMED that were more complex and convincing than this cheapie.

It has the look and feel of an orphaned episode of a badly conceived TV series no one has ever seen. It was a chore to watch and I could feel my mind getting dimmer and dimmer by the minute. Watching a movie shouldn't be this much hard work.


This film did entertain me with lots of laughs at the actors who kept the film moving along in all types of crazy directions. If you like suggestive language and sexy looking gals they were all in the picture and gals and guys all looking burned out before they even graduate from high school. There is one scene where the teenagers drive their car into a very fake deer and then proceed to throw it out into a lake or ocean, which is repeated over and over again. There is no horror to this film except the word Horrible for the entire picture and Arnold who plays a plastic cop is really one sick character. Please don't waste your time viewing this film.


I lived next door to the author in 1980 when he first moved out to Portland from Downer's Grove, Ill. with two of his high school buds. He seemed like a normal-enough guy, though he had a lot of artistic pretensions. Within a few years, he jumped into Portland's post-punk music scene with buddy Phil and a few others, and a band that definitely wasn't headed anywhere, although it got him a lot of action, including a fling with Courtney Love in her Portland groupie days. He seemed to think his musical prospects were good enough to move to San Francisco, then N.Y.C.

I was surprised to hear that he got a publishing deal in '95 after the band crashed and burned. Courtney Love's name seemed to be the clincher. I have no idea how the movie came about, especially with this cast, but I doubt that Gus Van Sant was involved. Anyway, the reviewers here seem to be unsure whether the lack of narrative focus is intentional or not, so I would just say that this is the work of a fairly intelligent guy who wants to be a writer, or artist or something, but doesn't have anything to say. Like Kerouac without the Benzedrine.


If this is the author's and director's idea of a slice of life, they are clinically manic depressives. A sad, moody film at best, with ubiquitously aimless and unhappy characters who negatively interact with disastrous results. This film is billed as a comedy. What was so funny about losing your home to an allegedly premeditated arson or the drug induced, forcible rape of one of the main characters. Is this art imitating life? Jack Black was mildly amusing as the mountain man, weed farmer. However, even this segment of the film was rife with pathos. What was the point of living in the middle of nowhere with an entourage. If Black's character was so paranoid, why was he doing acid with a group of people right out of Woodstock? Is there no end to disconnected relationships, a plot less script, and scene transitions lacking any cohesiveness or logical chronology.


It starts out looking like it may be going somewhere, then quickly leads the main characters into a three-ring circus of remarkable stupidity which permanently destroys any likability of the characters. I'm a huge collector of stoner movies, but this is something I would not consider a valid addition. Bong Water is trash from the very deepest regions of the dumpster, and I wouldn't be caught dead with this on my shelf. I'm actually convinced this movie was created by a Partnership for A Drug Free America. If you're a Jack Black fan then I would say that you may think 5 minutes of the movies is OK because Jack Black continues his legacy of singing songs for retards. I really can't say enough bad things about this movie.


There is nothing in this that the viewer could point to and call "good". The acting was dull and sedated. The sets and cinematography look like they were developed by someone grew up in a Starbucks and tried to make the perfect Gap commercial. Characters have no drive, motivation, or reason for us to care about them. There's such a lack of interest and tension that it's hard to follow the banal action and dialog. And the plot... if anyone finds it, I'm sure it would be as boring as everything else.

This isn't funny, it's not romantic, it doesn't reflect on the human condition. If you want a good stoner comedy, watch Half-Baked; if you want a good stoner drama, watch Trainspotting. The only reason I gave this 2 stars instead of one is because it's kind of fun seeing some familiar faces in the mid-late 90's cast. Which is a shallow reason to give the film even one star, but, then again, this is a shallow movie.


It's hard to believe that with a cast as strong as this one has, that this movie can be such a dud. It's such an incredibly horrible film. How was it ever made? How did so many good actors wind up in such a terrible film? Don't waste your life. Don't watch even one moment of this film.


What a waste of a great cast. Figured I'd check it out because it looked like a good stoner comedy with a lot of fairly well-known actors. What it turned out to be was a pointless collection of boring intertwining stories about several characters with minimal connections with each other. Characters who start off looking like decent people but end up with not a single likable or interesting characteristic among them. Calling it a comedy was a stretch as well...the only thing that made me chuckle was Jack Black's song, which was basically Tenacious D. I waited for something big to happen but ended up with nothing more than 97 minutes of my life wasted.


absolutely nothing about this movie is funny, interesting, or relevant. besides two characters getting together at the end, nothing is ever resolved, and there is no plot. and by the way, what is the deal with the cover of the dvd? it has a female ass in daisy duke shorts... where was that scene in the movie? no one ever wore daisy dukes in this film! surprisingly enough, almost all of the acting in this film is good, and jack black plays a full song (could be a tenacious d track... don't know though)... those are the only redeeming values, though. overall, it's just a waste of time.


About 5 minutes into the movie you're thrown into this brutally tepid cat and mouse romance between the two main characters and it just gets worse from there. The biggest problem is the characters and how completely unbelievable they are. This is what 50 year old producers and out-of-touch Hollywood script writers think stoner life is like, as if they gave the cast of Friends some pot. Bland, dull, annoying and completely unrealistic. I despise this movie.


This Film Was One Of The Worst Films I Have Ever Seen. This Movie Drags On and On and I Almost Turned It Off, But I Gave It A Shot. I Wasnt Expecting Anything Great, But I Was Expecting More Than This. Good Thing I Work At A Video Store and Saw This For Free, Because I Would'nt Spend One Dime On This Movie. I Gave This Movie a 2, Only Because I Have Seen Worse. If I Were You I Would Stay Away From This, Very Far Away.


The title leads viewers to believe that this is a fun movie to watch and probably much better when watched under the influence, but it is not good at all. One 15 minute sequence with Jack Black beautifully playing one of his songs and tripping on acid while venturing through the woods does not save this movie at all. Every actor in this movie has gone on to do better things, except for the main girls I could not think of one movie where I had seen them before. I hate to bash movies but I also hate not being able to find something decent in movies. The film is sad, not very funny and had such potential with its awesome cast. If it were redone and written over it could be awesome. If you want a good movie to see stoned, watch Grandma's Boy, or Half Baked or Dazed and Confused, but this is not a movie to be seen at all.


Movies like this give independent films a bad name! This simply a boring compilation of vingettes, with no structure whatsoever. I wouldn't be surprised if the screenwriter was completely stoned. If you want to see a good stoner comedy, watch "Half Baked." It's no award-winner, but at least it made me laugh. The film was obviously made on a micro-budget. Every scene either takes place in someone's house, someone's apartment or some outdoor location. If the writing was good and the dialogue was interesting, I would've ignored the film's budget (like in the case of Edward Burns' films), but obviously that's not the case this time around.

I quote Robert DeNiro from "A Bronx Tale" when I say, "There's nothing in the world worse than wasted talent." Everybody in the cast is talented. Luke Wilson, Alicia Witt, Brittany Murphy, Jeremy Sisto--all talented performers! And they all have been in much better movies. The actors give it their all, but they couldn't go too far with such a lame script. The only scene I found interesting was Jack Black's cameo, where he sings a song about being in the woods. And of course, there was the brief strip club scene at the beginning, which I also found appealing.

The characters are uninteresting and the story barely exists. Many movies are awful, but at least you understand their intentions. What was "Bongwater's" intention? The world will never know.

My score: 2 (out of 10)


When Exploiters become evangelist, they still exploit in the name of poverty!

My first reaction after seeing the movie is  God Bless me that I am not eating fish or any non-vegetarian products!

The documentary is about Lake Victoria of Tanzania where numerous varieties of lovely fishes used to live, and one day during 1960s somebody came and injected the mighty fish Perch, who became the exportable commodity for Tanzania to European and Japanese markets. The consequences were severe  firstly all local small and big fish were extinct; secondly the plane that came to take the fish could not travel empty because it does not make commercial/ business/ capitalist sense, so it is filled with arms and ammunition (that is what Europe can give this world); thirdly the pilots (as all migrants and traveling population like truck drivers) has to survive their sexual needs by flourishing cheap local African prostitutes for them; fourthly the brokers, dealers, middle men in the chain (mainly Indian origin business people) get richer and Tanzania's poverty remains the same; fifth poverty drives the children to crime, drugs etc.

The premise to make this documentary was excellent. But has the Director Hubert Sauper succeeded in making a good documentary? It is a big NO.

I say the reasons: Like in India, it requires a higher caste Brahmin to stand up and project to the world, Indian poverty and untouchables; similarly it requires an Austrain born European documentary maker to tell the world the story of Tanzania and its crumbling and ruining economy and poverty. It is the pathetic motive of unaware breeding of that rich class (who have never seen poverty or known poor), who survives, live, earn and fame like pest hanging on to projecting poverty to the world as soon as they see it. There is nothing more but despise by poor people in African and India who see such images of their.

The intention and motives of the Hubert seems totally lop-sided. The images, characters, locales, interviews are too grave and murky, dark and disturbing. He uses exaggerated ignorance as a voice to present his case. What we feel in the end is pity and sadness for Africans. We also start considering the Tanzania government and people as villainous. May be some westerners sitting in their air-conditioned rooms would find time to discuss and debate about the pathetic living conditions of Africans, but there would be nothing more than that.

The director restrains to show himself even once on the screen  so as not to be identified among the Europeans who exploit this poor country.

This Director Hubert can only survive being exploiters themselves like today's CNN and BCC media giants. Hubert did not have guts or common sense to talk to any Europeans who eat or companies who import these fish products. A totally lop-sided flimsy effort! But I understand the reasons of the same  Hubert just wanted to rake his fame, sitting and smiling with awards in his European comfort.

No more words to spare for this pathetic effort. I hesitantly give the documentary a higher rating 3.5 Stars out of 10, just because the theme was correct; but was pathetically exploited and blown away by amateurish ill conceived director made solely for un-intelligent western audiences! (Stars 3.5 out of 10)


I'm sorry to say that, but this is actually one of the worst documentaries i have EVER seen.

Due to its name "Darwin's Nightmare" i expected a documentary on problems relating to the Nile perch in Lake Victoria.

What I actually saw in this "documentary" is a loose accumulation of individual stories, most of which have no relation to neither fish nor lake. And for a large part you can hardly call them stories - it's more like some accumulated scenes that lack a meaningful connection...

Why does this movie waste time on: - Showing us non-relevant information on the families of the Russian pilots (several minutes are wasted for example on their private digicam snapshots of wives and daughters) - Mourning the death of an African child who got bitten by a crocodile (as if that could not have happened without the Nile perch) - Showing us about 100 times how planes land and start at the airport - Showing us strange religious events for several minutes - Discussing in detail the life and death of a whore at the airport - Talking to kids about their mothers, fathers - what they work and/or how they died (well, guess what: some died of HIV - who would have guessed that?) Those are just some examples, i could go on for several pages...

This movie is absolutely unfocused, and does not know at all what it wants to tell the viewer. If you have never heard of Africa and have no idea that this continent has Social/Health/HIV/Violence/War problems then this movie might be right for you. If you haven't had your eyes closed for the last decades 90% of what this movie shows won't be new to you - and the way it's presented here will try its best to make you fall asleep.

Perhaps my expectations on this movie were to high, but i really didn't like it even though this is a topic that I would generally find interesting. If this movie wants to show how the poverty is related to the Nile perch, than it perhaps should have spent some time on discussing that matter...


The title of this documentary is very misleading. At no time during the documentary do they show how the introduction of the Nile Perch fish into Lake Victoria has cause any of the problems facing the town of Mwanza, Tanzania. The film tries to place the problems of Tanzania on an environmental cause but the truth of that matter is the problems stem from a parasitic outside force. The documentary is very slowing paced with no narrative what so ever. Instead it relies on small blips of text between none related segments to display bits of information that do little to add or expand of the subject matter. There are only two attempts to discus the environmental effects of the Nile Perch fish. One is a small segment about 10 seconds long where they interview the factory managers where the fish is processed and he briefly mentions how 50 years ago the Nile Perch was introduced into the lake and it consumed the other fish species. The film maker makes no attempt to follow up on the matter or go deeper into it. The second attempt is when within this documentary they film the showing of another documentary that is discussing the environmental impact the Nile Perch has introduced, and again no real attempt is made to expand on just how devastating the problem has become.

The subject matter that this documentary does delve into has nothing to do with the Perch fish itself and more to do with the problems facing most African countries. The film tries to link the introduction of the Perch fish with AIDS, Poverty and Pollution in Tanzania but never makes a direct connection. As any intelligent person well read with problems in Africa, the problems shown here are not unique to Tanzania but affect most of Africa and have nothing to do with the fish. It would have been great if the film makers would have shown how the local economy or life was before the fish was introduced and how it has been negatively impacted by the introduction of the fish but they don't. The fact of the matter is that many of the people they interview say that the fish has provided jobs and opportunity for many. Yes things are BAD within the town of Mwanza but they are far worst in other parts of the country and continent for that matter.

A weak attempt by the documentary makers to link the fish to famine problems in Tanzania is quickly discredited by the documentary itself. First off Tanzania is a very large country and Lake Victoria is only a small portion of the country. Many of the individuals interview actually say that they can to Mwanza, the fishing town on the lake, to find a job and feed their families because things were so bad in other parts of the country.

This documentary is very weak, has no narrative and makes no attempt to actually link anything they display to the Nile Perch. It plays on people's emotions by displaying images of the devastation of poverty, famine and AIDS making no attempt to show you how any of this is unique to the Lake Victoria region of Tanzania or directly related to the Perch Fish. The fact is most of the problems have more to do with War, Globalization and Christianity than and environmental effect of the Perch fish itself.


This documentary was boring, and quite stupid.

I mean... the documentary maker obviously does not even know what how Darwinian evolution works? It is a theory, and the name is just plain dumb. Reading a college biology text-book could have told the documentary maker what Darwinism really is. Darwinism is a good theory, but evil if it is done as politics.

Also there was no real evidence in this documentary just interviewing some people... no expert testimonies, and shady leads...

The documentary was also boring. I mean it could have been edited down to 35 minutes, and then it would have been lots better.

There are a lot better documentaries than this... this was not worth watching... you can get better information from Wikipedia =D DON'T WASTE YOUR MONEY AND TIME!


After having watched Darwin's Nightmare, one must have the impression of Tanzania being a living hell, with its population being quasi-slaves delivering the finest fish to the well-fed Europeans while leaving the fish bones to the starving population. In exchange for the fish they get western-made weapons, which the mainly unemployed population eagerly awaits to use, because being a soldier is their only source of income.

So everything is all dark with trade as the incarnation of evil and source of all misery? Not quite. Fortunately Darwin's Nightmare shows the dark sides only and completely spares the positive aspects. In fact, the documentary hardly tells anything about the economic and ecologic importance the victoriaperch has for the region.

For the countries around lake Victoria the victoriaperch is the second to third most important source of income. The wages in the fishing industry are way above average. Tanzania has banned huge trawlers to secure the jobs of thousands of fishermen. The adjacent states have met agreements to keep fishing on a sustainable level. Cities at the lake are benefiting from the taxes the fishers have to pay for each kilogram caught fish and the taxes on the factories' exports and profits. Furthermore Tanzania has banned exporting the local traditional fish, which still play an important role feeding the local population.

By ignoring those positive signs the documentary deters the badly needed western consumers and investors and thus threatens to aggravate the African's situation.

For further reading I can recommend two articles the German alternative-wing newspaper wrote on the subject: http://www.taz.de/pt/2006/09/02/a0013.1/textdruck http://www.taz.de/pt/2005/03/17/a0151.1/text


My mom and I went to see this film because my brother is serving in the U.S. Peace Corps in the same region in which it's set. Halfway through the film, I decided that given its failure to measure up to what it pretends to accomplish, the title is pretentious. The subject it deals with could have made for an excellent documentary, but because of its poor execution, it left me far less educated about the issue than I had hoped to become. I agree with laura-jane from Canada ("Powerful Message but Lacks Focus."). I also agree with the user who commented that this filmmaker's narration-free style is the opposite of that of Michael Moore, but I don't agree that it presents varying points of view and invites the viewer to decide for him- or herself. I do agree with one user's comment that "a lesson is better learned when we draw the conclusions ourselves"; however, our conclusions can't be anything but poorly founded if we are presented with little relevant information from which to draw them.

The main points of the documentary seemed to be that 1) The African people who live near Lake Victoria are very poor and suffer greatly. 2) The introduction of perch to Lake Victoria, inflicted by Europeans, ruined its ecosystem. 3) The communities surrounding Lake Victoria are financially dependent on the perch economy.

The best things I can say about the film is that it attempted to relate the perspectives of the average people in sub-Saharan Africa, which, unfortunately, is an anomaly among films, and that it attempted to portray poverty as the result of a dysfunctional economic system rather than a universal, inevitable phenomenon. I liked the irony it captured in the massive amount of fish leaving the country in the face of a famine. I appreciated the portrayal of how out of touch the U.N. team assigned to the region was with the people. Like almost all documentaries that don't have the word "women" in the title, this film fails to do a good job representing women's voices -- the majority of the talking done in interviews is that of men.

Maybe I need to watch the film a second time in order to catch some key points I might have missed, but I failed to detect Sauper's theory of the relationship between the introduction of perch to Lake Victoria and the unjust living conditions for Africans living near the lake. Furthermore, I could be wrong, but it struck me that Sauper could do well to improve his interview skills. Not only did the questions he asked and the responses he included seem to be arbitrary, but he seemed to have a real knack for making interviewees awkward and uncomfortable.

The most compelling development in the film is the suggestion that the exportation of perch now functions to mask the importation of arms and that the real economy screwing over Tanzanians is that of war, not fishing. Sadly, Sauper shies away from conducting a thorough expose of the idea (or at least extending the interview with the reporter who seemed to know what he was talking about in regards to the weapons importation) and cops out with a "decide for yourself" approach.

If Darwin's Nightmare was meant to dispel the myth that first world exploitation of the third world gives them "a chance for a better life," it didn't do a good job of it. If it was meant to depict how the weapons manufacturing industry in the U.S. and Europe is responsible for much armed conflict around the world, it didn't do a good job of it. If it was meant to portray what drives people to prostitution, it didn't do a good job of it. If it was meant to cast light on the inability of the U.N. to carry out its mission, it didn't do a good job of it. If it was meant to say that meager income Tanzanians earn from the perch isn't worth the human cost of tinkering with mother nature to create a profitable product, it didn't do a good job of it. If it was meant to imply that Tanzania would be much better off had Europeans never come, it didn't do a good job of it.


I think the movie was one sided I watched it recently and find the documentary typical of western movie makers that was biased without substance. The fact is prostitution do exist everywhere in the world not in Tanzania alone and not because of this fish business, there prostitutes were there way before the Russian and other business people arrived in Mwanza. Poverty is indeed endemic in Africa let alone Tanzania and this is not because of fish fillet business, in fact the fish industry has helped millions to support their families on their daily life. This movie just tarnish the good image of this peace loving country. As for the arms trade the film could not substantiate if there is any truth in that indeed looking critically at the films one is doubting the authenticity of the film maker, it seems that their trying to prove their point by using a few characters which can be done for anything really. Yes Tanzania is a poor country yes there are prostitutes and street children but they are not the product this business, it is just a common scenario in most poor countries indeed the world over even in the western world...What a load of rubbish.

The pilot themselves are talking of sending weapons to Angola which is more than 2000km south of Tanzania and the war was in DRC also miles away from Mwanza, the director could not give evidence how these weapons were transported from Mwanza to DRC!

In short the films lacks focus and respectability, it is quite easy to find the character anywhere in Africa and has nothing to do Darwin's nightmare or fish fillet...What a load of rubbish!

The truth is the Nile perch has not decimated all other species in the lake contrary to what the movie portrays and also less than 25% of all catches from lake Victoria are exported the rest is consumed locally so lets get that one right.


If this film was just outrageously poor would be fine, the problem is many take it seriously. To make it short, a few points:

- There is no story, no focus, no lead whatsoever and all the questions raised fail to find an answer. Overall, the film is extremely repetitive and boring (I have been in war-torn African countries several times and found all the lingering on local misery and hopelessness very painful to watch but still having no sense).

- Questions raised are pure manipulation and the truth is that they are no questions but statements.

- I am no doc filmmaker, but what's the point in raising, for example, the question of weapon smuggling, if the only element brought to the audience is a local reporter's statement? The director doesn't even bother showing us at least a sequence where he would be waiting near the airport trying to spot heavily loaded trucks leaving the area right after a plane landed.

- The story of the fish takes up less than 5 mn, and is only supported by a sequence where the director films a documentary shown during a local conference. Did this guy do any work at all????

- Abject poverty is shown all the time in endless sequences but where's the point? One can go almost anywhere in Africa with a hand cam and shoot the same images unfortunately. Where's the big news?

- Filming the prostitutes watching and crying over images of their assassinated friend and fellow prostitute is worth the worst emotional manipulations one can see these days on thrash and real TV.

- The parallel drawn between the famine devastating the country with over two million starving and the exportation of fish is absolutely pointless, dishonest and makes no sense but to manipulate viewers in typically anti-globalization and anti-western feelings.

There is an interesting debate in France after an academic published a very detailed comment on the film, which brought number of journalists working in Africa for decades to investigate a bit further about several details. It turns out that:

- The fish waste shown drying in the sun and collected by some local people is not at all meant to be eaten by human beings but is collected to be exported for reasonably good money for animal-feeding purposes. I think I am not the only one having had the impression that the director suggested the exact opposite.

- Arm smuggling is a reality (but there again, where's the big news??), but not the way this film explains the issue. If the empty planes landing in Mwanza do participate in smuggling, they actually unload their shipment in a different location in Africa, then go to Mwanza to pick up fish in order not to make the trip back empty (meaning that they do actually land empty in Mwanza...).

- People do eat fish locally, contrary to what the film suggest (around 40-60% of what is taken out of the lake) and thousands of people make their living with it. Good for them! It's private business of that kind that will one day take African countries out of poverty and not western moaning and endless foreign assistance.

I cannot tell how shocked I am seeing the success of this film!


I saw the movie in original Italian. It must be said that the acting and interpretation is most heavily polluted by the TV-generated trend to speak in a severely muffled voice, not moving lips, straining tones, as emerged in the "That's real life"-productions and "Let's-raise-our audience-with-a-few-tears"-screen-playwriting. The late Massimo Girotti towers upon the other characters for intensity, clarity of expression and intellectual honesty. The movie has some good hints, but (as in another comment before mine) it lacks a focal point and dribbles away in many plot-lets of lesser and lesser relevance, another trend dragged in from the TV productions, well known to Italians. A few drops in style could be spared to the public, such as the patisserie drag (Charm and aesthetics of cooking plus sensual payload of sweets, see Chocolat, Babette's lunch, Vatel etc.) Hammam and the Fairies are definitely more truthful, seems that Ozpetek has learned the tune of Italy in the early 2000s and is humming along... I'll give him a last chance though...


I really liked this movie. Number 5, the star robot of the movie gets hit by lightning and some thing happened to his circuits. He act and thinks more like a human.The robot repeats commercials he learns after watching TV. He then applies these sayings to his circumstances. Number 5 is quick witted and funny. The character imitates voices of stars, tries to dance like John Travolta in Staying Alive and a lot of other things. He has a saying for most of his circumstances that he memorized. The actions of the robots is really good. Number 5 wants to drive, cook and please Stefany with all the characteristics of a human. The way the robots move and line up is really hysterical.I am disappointed that the writers could not keep this clean for all viewers. This movie has a surpris ending something you would not expect. I hate movies that have swearing in them even though I like them I give them a lower rating. This movie had swearing words. Jesus Christ was used as swearing word which offends me it is used a least 3 times. G-d D-m, Bull sh_t etc. It could have been a wonderful movie with out all this offensive language. There is no sex in this film, some violence like robots blowing up cars and machines.


This movie is a complete and utter waste of time, one of the worst films I've ever seen. And coming from me, that is definitely saying something. In fact, I wish I could have given it negative stars instead of just rating it as a pathetic one-star awful.

When I rented this movie, I had an open mind. I find the legend of the chupacabra interesting and I have a fondness for cheesy horror flicks. But I draw the line at this one.

The acting sucked. The lead male gives one of the worst performances ever, looking and sounding unnatural as he delivers his poorly written lines. The lead female gives a slightly more palatable performance, but that really doesn't take much.

The chupacabra... well, considering how low budget this movie must have been, the creature was tolerable. It does, however, look exactly like someone in a mask and body suit. The mask is fairly detailed and might look cool in person, but not so on screen.

Speaking of on screen, you'd think they could have at least used a better camera. It looks like it was shot with a camcorder for crying out loud. Not a very good one, either.

I don't know what whoever wrote this abomination was thinking. The dialog sucks and just... I can't describe what I feel about it. At least not without getting in trouble with the site.

My advice? Avoid this at all costs. It's just not worth it. If it comes on TV and you have nothing else to do or watch, then *find* something else to do or watch. Read a book, listen to music, *anything.* Just don't subject yourself to this. If you do, you cannot say you weren't warned. And for Lord and Lady's sake, don't rent this sucker. It is not worth it, even if you get the chance to rent it for fifty cents. Trust me, I know.


According to this masterpiece of film-making's script (pun intended), Charles Darwin was full of nonsense when he presented his evolution theory, because he made absolutely no mention of any alien intervention. For you see, aliens sent Chupacabras to the earth and they form the missing link in the evolution theory. However, the rest of the film clearly seems to emphasize that Chupacabras are a typically Puerto Rican phenomenon, so I don't really know where that fits in. Are they saying all Puerto Ricans are aliens? Whatever, it's all pretty irrelevant anyway. The only thing you need to memorize is that "El Chupacabre" is an utterly cheap and imbecilic amateur B-movie, lacking tension, character development and any form of style. Several duos of people are chasing this goat-munching monster (remotely resembling the midget version of the Pumpkinhead demon) through the streets and ghettos of an ugly city. We have an untalented dogcatcher and a nagging female novelist, a pair of obnoxious cops and the supposedly evil scientist with his dim-witted accomplice. Since they all are extremely incompetent in what they do, the monster can carelessly carry on devouring all the Latino immigrants of the neighborhood. The monster itself looks okay and the make-up effects on his victims' leftovers are acceptably gross and bloody. The acting performances are irredeemably awful and headache inducing. Particularly Eric Alegria is pitiable in his first and only lead role as the overly ambitious employee of Animal Control. Yes, it's an incredibly stupid film, but surely you have struggled yourself through worse and less amusing low-budget garbage.


Boyle Heights, Los Angeles: legendary South American goat-sucking vampire, El Chupacabra, is on the loose, feeding on anyone unlucky enough to cross its path. Animal control officer Navarro (Eric Alegria) and Chupacabra expert/author Starlina Divide (Elina Madison) attempt to track down the creature, but find their progress hampered by a pair of dumb cops, money hungry locals keen to capture the beast for a fat reward, and a couple of nefarious scientists who want the monster for their experiments.

Stinking higher than a two-week-old taco, El Chupacabra is an incredibly bad horror movie that even fans of incredibly bad horror movies might struggle to sit through. With its dreadful script, awful direction (by not one, but two talentless hacksBrennon Jones and Paul Wynne), laughable dialogue, and some of the worst acting this side of a porn flick, I recommend this film about as much as I do drinking the tap water in Mexico.

As Navarro and Starlina proceed with their investigations, viewers are treated to some incredibly weak gore, the worst designed book jacket in history, the most unconvincing dead person I've seen since the blinking corpse in Dr. Butcher MD, and a high-tech computerised security system consisting of a keyboard nailed to a post.

To be fair, for a guy in a rubber suit, the monster itself is fairly creepy (hairy, with big claws, and a face like a particularly ugly bat), but its appearances are few and far between, with more screen time spent on the tedious trials and tribulations of whiney Officer Navarro than on the killer antics of the titular creature (just how many times is it necessary to see Navarro handing in paperwork to his bitchy boss?).

If, like me, you make the mistake of wasting your hard-earned cash on this dreadful latino bilge (in my case, it was a whole 50p), consider using the disc as a coaster for your tequila rather than actually watching it.


This is a great example of what could have been a great film and a great idea but turned out to be really bad in the process. I was mainly tempted to get this because of the DVD cover, stupid me, but I did anyway and I was blown away, in a bad sense. This movie is essentially about El Chupacabra wreaking havoc around Los Angeles and it's up to a local animal cop and a writer to save the day, before two corrupt cops and two evil scientists bring them down. The main reason why I did not enjoy this film was because of big continuity errors that were hard to not notice. Along with some bad acting, okay lighting and nothing scary, this movie did not hit me as much as is it probably should have. However, compared to other Chupacabra movies, this one certainly tops the charts, just barely.

First off, the continuity in this movie is way off and I mean off the shoulders and into the ditch. There were so many points were the characters said or did something and then in the next shot, they aren't doing it or the change never occurred. Case in point: the main character has a gun, the Chupacabra attacks, he whips out a flair from nowhere and distracts and the gun in missing. The girl runs while he defends here with the mystery flair and she had no gun, then the main character is running with the girl and has the gun. Where did the flair come from and what happened to the gun. The time of day gets screwed up. One minute it is sun set and you can still see the sun and then the next minute it looks like midnight. There were some plot holes as in, why was the Chupacabra there, what were the scientists doing, what happened to this guy and why did he shoot the animal and it still lived? These things bugged the heck out of me and none of the questions were answered.

Next on the list is the acting. Boy was it wooden and bad. The main character Navarro, played by Eric Algeria, seems a bit too calm at points and too dedicated to finding out what killed a few dogs and when a tragedy hits, his emotion was just not there. Elina Madison, who played Starlina, did a fairly poor job. She was the author of a bestselling book about the Chupacabra and she just didn't seem into her role or her performance. Her acting was kind of laughable and a poor. Even for an author she knows too much about that thing, and knows how to disable a high security defense system in a hidden laboratory. Tony Criss was okay, but he seemed a bit to calm for some of the stuff that was going on. The movie reminds me of a bad reenactment to murder for some crime solving show, where the actors and actresses aren't really that committed to their work.

I rarely don't get this anal when it comes to lighting or editing, but for this movie, I could not help but be harsh on the lighting. It took me out of the movie a number of times because the lighting was so poorly directed. There were times when they were trying to be creative by adding color filters to the scene to make it more "comic bookish," but it backfired. The worse part is at night when it is pith black outside, but the scene is so oversaturated with light, it seems like its day. They keep switching from high intensity light to soft light for random scenes, and the lights seem so bright that the actors were squinting. It shouldn't be that bright that there are dark shadows at night. During the sunset when the lighting was perfect, that's the only time when the light was good, other than that it was terrible.

There were not scares in this film. There was only one time where I did jump but other than that, it wasn't scary. There were points were it probably could have been scary but it was so damn light out, you could see the Chupacabra approach the man, but if it was dark, it would have been better. Even the creature design for the Chupacabra was poor, it looked good but it was a short man or kid in a jump suit. They didn't hide his face; they showed him with no sense of mystery or any enigmatic appearance. There was a fair amount of gore, but it seemed unreal. This movie just wasn't scary, that's all.

Overall, they did Americanize a great South American legend into a blood-thirsty human eater, which the Chupacabra isn't. In fact, it was scared of people and it only killed goats, sheep, dogs and deer because it was said that it hated the smell of humans. But, then were would the story be? I did not enjoy this film for any reason, but I will give them credit for trying to make a good film with good intentions. I would not recommend this film to any horror fan, but if you like indie or B-movies, you should check this out. Also, if you are easily tempted by cult-classics, you'd enjoy this film. I didn't, I won't see it again, but in some deep sedated way, I enjoy these kinds of movie just to see what the other side of Hollywood is making.


The back of my DVD describes the plot of "El Chucabra":after his capture in the wilderness,the legendary bloodthirsty creature Chupacabra escapes into the city creating mayhem and panic.As they pursue the deadly beast,an animal control officer and scientist Dr Starlina Davide realize that a vigilante with his own suspicious plan is also tracking the elusive killer for a mysterious research facility run by the diabolical Dr Goodspeed.This putrid horror flick is somewhat amusing,if you watch it under the influence of alcohol.The script is completely silly,the acting is wooden beyond belief and the direction is amateurish.Two rubber Chupacabra suits are easily the best thing about this movie.3 out of 10 and that's being extremely kind.


You want the worst horror movie of the 21st century? El Chupacabra is it. "Manos:The Hands of Fate" is THE worst movie of all time, but El Chupacabra certainly is the worst movie of this century. It also has to have the distinction of having the absolute worst leading actor ever. Eric Alegria, the actor in the lead role, has never done another film other than El Chupacabra, gee - I wonder why.

Apparently the monster is attacking people, but everyone that is attacked moves really slowly and is really stupid. And, there are no cops at all in this town just two idiot detectives - Hello! Cops show up on the scene of homicides first, then the detectives come! And, apparently the monster only attacks in one person's backyard, and some deserted area by the docks. Or...thats the only places the filmmakers could get access to film.

This 'film' is the reason why IMDb must allow us to give negative stars. This easily deserves -10 stars, or at least 0. They should allow a 0 rating.


OK, so i have recently been collecting a lot of vipco and hardgore titles on DVD and i have to say that this one is one of the most disappointing ones. A more recent film compared to other titles in the Hardgore catalogue this was a straight to DVD release. i've always been interested in the myth of el chokeberry ever since i saw a documentary on it as a teenager. however this film is a terrible let down shot on tacky dv the storyline and acting are terrible, it took me three goes to watch this film all the way through. While cheap 80's and 90's horror films are good because of their cheap budgets and comedy this film is not.

check out some other titles in the hardgore series first, boneyard for example is older but much much better.


One of the latest (disaster) movies from York Entertainment, "El Chupacabra" excels in making its viewer want to die after having wasted two hours watching it. This movie appears to have been filmed with a spare camcorder normally used for birthday parties. The only reason I could tell that it wasn't was because of certain scenes where the cameraman's shadow is in the frame.

Just about every aspect of cinema is plagued by this movie, and I'm sure that it has set the film industry back another ten years. The actors are borderline retarded, often pausing while they wait for the off-screen cue-card to change. The actor that plays Navarro not only slurs and skips word in his dialogue, but stumbles through the swiss-cheese plot line with a squinting and confounded look on his face. Other actors break the forth wall and overall show the acting skill of a twelve-year old kid doing a science project in his backyard.

My friends and I purposefully search out the worst possible movies, and this one gave us more than we bargained for. The humorous parts are unfunny and the rest is riddled with horrible clichés and plot holes. As one friend so humbly put it, this movie is the aborted fetus of the industry. I would highly suggest this film for people like me that purposely search for these movies, but for all others, beware!


SPOILERS

This movie was rented as a joke, and what a joke it was. The film is based on a dog catcher who is looking for El Chupacabra. The dog catchers outfit is so ridiculous. It looks like he sewed the patch on his hat and for some reason he shows of his "muscles" by rolling up his sleeves. Throughout the movie, mostly at night, you can see how bad the lighting was. They are in a car which is brightly lit and they are driving in pitch black. Often you can see the camera man's shadow on the ground. The costumes are terrible, the lighting is terrible, and the acting is terrible. This is a good movie for a laugh...maybe.


Where do I start? The box should have been enough to keep me away from this attempt, but I'd been taught early on not to judge a book (or movie) by its cover, so I ignored the disgusting graphic quality of the box and rented it anyway. But common sense should tell you that if they can't do a single still image properly, then how dismal will the moving ones be, later? Yeah. They were pretty awful.

The actors in this flick appeared totally unaware they were being filmed, as just any expression seemed to do fine, regardless of the situation the characters were in or what they were reacting to.

However, a good story can offset the downfalls of low budget productions. Good dialog can carry a poorly-funded attempt at times. Unfortunately, this was not one of those times, as the story was as weak and nonexistent as the other required elements of good cinema.

There simply aren't words for how bad this was.

Perhaps you can get the idea from my rating of -2.3/10 from...

the Fiend :.


There is a reason why the world forgot these creatures: they are dull. This is a Hammer Production which means that whoever made this movie should be struck with a hammer, several times if possible - and where it most hurts. Most people put more thought into taking a dump than these idiots have put into making this movie.

Seriously now The movie begins with some cavemen hunting an antelope-thing. Now, antelopes must have evolved a lot from those pre-historic times because they actually attack and kill people here. After that, it's time to meet the rest of the tribe: more bearded men, some fashion-models, and even a couple of very old, grey-haired grannies and grandpas. These old geezers obviously never heard about cave people not surpassing the age of 30; they refused to bow to the will of both logic and pre-historical records, so they remain alive. One of the cavemen isn't bearded; he is clean-shaven. Not quite as clean-shaven as Tarzan, The Lord of the Humanoid Clean-Shaven Ones Roaming the Jungle Since Childhood And Without a Razor, but thereabouts.

What follows is the obligatory earthquake/molten-lava destruction sequence which causes a lot of our not-so-hairy friends to meet their doom. It is interesting to note that before the earthquake the fashion-models showed their breasts more. After it, they must have gotten shy or something, because they covered their chests for a while (maybe they were covered by ash so I mistakenly thought they were covered). More action follows in the form of two fashion-models wrestling in the sand; the next-best thing to female mud-wrestling, I suppose. After a good deal of the desert has been crossed, our black-haired tribe meets - how else could it be - a blond tribe. Yawn.

More spellbinding stuff follows. There is that redhead fashion-model who is bothered by seeing a cave-teen kill a hedge-hog-thing. There is also the scene of a woman dying at birth: those cave-fashion-models are so frail. Eventually we get to meet an even darker -haired and -skinned tribe, i.e. an evil tribe. One of them becomes a WWF champion after he actually beats(!) a huge bear-thing in a wrestling bout. 1,2,3... and it's done: the bear is the loser. We also witness a jealous caveman miraculously recover from two major injuries: first he gets stabbed with a big spear into the thigh, yet he walks away from that as if it were but a scratch. Then he gets thrown off a cliff - onto a big rock - by the blond goodie-two-shoes caveman, yet he walks away from it as if he were thrown onto a giant sofa. It's unclear in the end whether he dies from falling off an even higher cliff or from that voodoo doll being crushed. Oh yes, voodoo was used in pre-historic times by white tribes that live in the desert and whose females were fashion-models. It's always important to learn from movies.

The message of the movie is as insightful as it is educational: cave people liked to fight for local power and they loved their fashion-models, too. As if any self-respecting caveman would fight to be leader of such a sorry bunch.


This film has got so much in it. Prehistoric society, adventure, romance, true brotherhood, violence, sex, religion; all depicted abundantly..without a single word uttered!!! And how come it sucks so bad? This film will make you rethink the origin of humanity. If this were the product of anthropology, you would rather defy Darwinian theory and Hegelian synthesis all together. You cannot bear to watch this even with your brain shut down. And now you are thinking, "I've got to see this." I warned you. I take no responsibility whatsoever should you regret spending over an hour staring at this piece of art. Well, I did warn you. This should be forgotten and buried for ever.


Awful, Awful, Awful show. "Real world" issues dealt with blatant unoriginality. Stereotypes galore. What the hell is going on with the African-American (black!) guys eyebrows? Tyrone power! Awful, Awful, Awful, Awful, Awful show. The fact that it lasted three seasons beggars belief. This show truly is swill for the brain dead accepters of mediocrity.

Saved by the Bell almost seemed humorous compared to this. Well, upon hindsight, no. It's of the same banal ilk and therefore equally devoid of intelligence. The only thing that it's missing so far is the Jesus is GOD message. The mentality and deliverance is the same, yet somehow feels evil and soulless. You can almost hear the TV executives sprouting buzz words at each other. In fact I felt so incensed at this shows excremental existence, I felt compelled to comment.

Awful, Awful, Awful show.


I cannot believe I actually set up a 'season pass' on my TiVo for this, apparently they had a good preview or something .. I can't imagine it though. After seeing about 5 minutes I thought to myself.. why am I watching this.. It is definitely not reality, and some of the worst acting I have ever seen on television.. I am a total addict of reality TV and there is nothing real about this. THE ACTING.. (if you can call it that) is awful.. The only ones that are almost 5% decent are the girls that are meant to draw viewers to the show.. although they would need to be a lot prettier to save this train wreck.. if they would have more lines they would probably change my mind as they probably have no talent either. This is obviously a very low budget production with 'actors' who are apparently very cheap. There is no way they could get a job in anything else. Someone needs to direct these people to a job in food service.. Maybe they could do that. Oh and by the way, Parco P.I. no longer occupies any space on my TiVo or TiVo's season pass list. Definitely the worst show I've ever seen.


I totally agree that the reenactments kill what could otherwise be a great show. I'll admit that I'd seen 1 or 2 episodes last season and was not clear at all that it was all reenacted. But when I caught one episode recently it suddenly jumped out at me BIG TIME and I lost interest immediately. Then I noticed the disclaimer at the start before an episode that followed. Has anyone followed the show closely enough to tell me, did they actually make the "acting" and reenacting parts more artificial on purpose, or did I just not notice before. I'm usually pretty good at sensing this stuff, but the recent episode was so obviously artificial I practically tripped over it. Now I have no interest whatsoever in watching and have given up entirely on it. It just doesn't have any real value if it's all scripted and acted. And at least lately, it seems VERY poorly scripted and acted. The comment above that says who cares if it's all reenactments, I do. Without visual truth, this is just a bunch of "you know what happened, one time this guy" heresay. It's info better read in a book.


Just finished watching this movie. I couldn't imagine watching this on VHS, as there were scenes where I needed the subtitles to hear through an accent or sound effect, even though the scene itself was in English.

Visually, the movie is pretty appealing. The few CG effects were very obvious insertions, but the prosthetics/creature effects weren't bad. Not perfect, but photography and editing (which were pretty good) made up for a lot. Acting was generally bad, though how much of that can be blamed on the director I couldn't say, having never seen any of the actors before. The exception, I think, was M. Gomez (Uxia). She stole every scene she had a part in, and not just because of a very pretty face, but there was something akin to an urgency to her performance that none of the others had. The writing could have been a lot better - the plot was still unmistakably Lovecraft, and plenty of Lovecraft details were written in, but I personally could have done without most of the dialogue.


Anthony Perkins and Sophia Loren are absolutely gorgeous in this ca. 1840 "Western". That alone, however doesn't help a ridiculous story, with countless historically incorrect elements.

Byrl Ives is convincing as the 70-something tyrannical patriarch, an egomaniac who swears to see his 100th birthday. His wild dancing at a party he gives for his neighbors will make anyone take notice (this guy is SEVETY SIX?). Always mumbling Bible verses, he demands respect, while driving sons and friends away with his self-righteous rantings and emotional cruelties.

The love affair between Perkins and Loren at first appears absurd, but becomes believable near the end. There is plenty of drama, but not enough to feel good about. Clearly written for the stage, this story was dated even when it was filmed. Perkins whistles "My Bonnie" in the 1840s, although the song wasn't composed until 1882.

Critics knocking Sophia Lorens "command of the English language" are rather petty. I found her English flawless and completely audible. As a Neapolitan, Loren speaks a distinct dialect that often had to be dubbed into "proper Italian". Her "accent", however, hardly affects how she speaks English. As a first Generation German American, I can appreciate the efforts of those who learn English as a second, or even third or fourth language.

"Desire Under The Elms" is a drama (or even a tragedy) in the Classic Sense. For my enjoyment is was missing a logical story and an overall "pay off" for the time invested. Fans of the stars won't want to miss it, others, however, tune in at your own risk!


In fact, everyone responsible for this dreck ought to be whipped, dragged, and hung! IF this is what great Eugene O'Niell drama is like I never want to be victim to viewing it ever again. There are so many things WRONG w/ this feature where does one begin? First, Elmer Bernstein's bombastic score is present thru out the entire film even in the quiet scenes where background music subtracts from the character's motivations. Second, these characters are NOT pleasant people and while some reviewers might enjoy that I personally disliked every scene in which Ives ate up the scenery, but that was the way his characters was written: to be disliked. W/ Loren it just never is made clear whether she's good or bad  and all her babbling about how she's going to change things back to the way they were before the baby arrives  well, I saw what was coming clearly. Perkins is miscast and then he plays the role like a warm-up for Norman Bates (which he played two years later) even wanting to take blame for the murder at the end. Hokey! Third, this film is a studio sound-stage production and it suffers because of it. The story would have benefited from location shooting to develop a sense of "place" regarding the farm (which all the main leads are fighting over). As it is filmed there's no sense of value to the property because the film has a studio sound-stage feel to it that isn't convincing. This is a really awful film.


Tom Selleck plays an absentee son to senile "pop" Don Ameche and weary mom Anne Jackson, making up for his indiscretions (one presumes) and taking them in after Ameche has burned down his mobile home; meanwhile, Selleck's job is vanquished by the F.B.I., his assets are frozen, his wife and kids leave him and his obnoxious sister and her brats have come to stay. Brightly-painted comedy-of-ills is as out of touch with reality as Ameche's doddering old coot. Perhaps a serious first draft (with scenes such as Ameche walking out into traffic with two toddlers) was incorporated into a sillier second or third version (with Selleck getting poked, bumped, prodded, and eventually losing a toe and a testicle!). Either way, it's a painful experience, and Selleck's sudden dedication to his father makes little sense; he hobbles around and howls in pain, but retains his heart of mush. This movie is mush. * from ****


Folks! is a "comedy" about a man whose parents beg him to kill them because they're going senile and want to be put out of their misery. Several times he tries to kill them and then changes his mind, saving them from his death-traps at the last minute and losing one of his body parts each time in the process. The movie seems to hate its main character, which makes it all the more painful to watch. There's also the usual tacked-on love-interest and predictable ending.

This movie was also the first time I'd seen Tom Selleck without a mustache, and I remember his shaved upper lip looking weird and making me feel slightly slick. But this might have been just because of the terrible premise and lame execution of the movie.


My father insisted I should watch this film with him and I regret that I wasted my time watching--I want that approximate hour and a half back! The "funny" little film concerns the elderly Don Ameche staying with his son, Tom Selleck. It turns out that Ameche isn't just "forgetful" like he's been told, but has dementia (it seems a lot like Alzheimers). And, because Dad is so frequently "out to lunch" he gets into so much trouble again and again--almost like the adorable tyke from BABY'S DAY OUT. The problem, though, is that you know BABY'S DAY OUT is all fantasy and the baby is going to be fine. Plus, you aren't laughing at the baby for having a deformity or illness. But, in this case, you are being encouraged to laugh at a man who is slowly losing his mind--and where's the humor in that?! If this film had been more successful, would the producers have then made films making fun or people with Cerebral Palsy or a Flesh-eating Virus?!?! There are a lot of people who should have felt ashamed at having made this film.


Recap: A band of five young American men, all that is left of a platoon hit hard during the Ardenne offensive during the WWII get the assignment as a forward outpost and to look for enemy activity. They're in really bad condition, both physically and mentally, and think they have struck gold when their outpost is in an abandoned but once plush mansion full with food. But after a while there is some enemy activity, and it is very odd. Not hostile, but odd. It seems like there is a German squad out there, in equally bad condition, that want nothing more than to surrender.

Comments: Based on a novel and my guess that the novel is much better but the story doesn't seem to translate very well to the big screen. Indeed it is a different war movie, much more about the mental pressure during wartimes than fighting and battles. But I can almost feel that scenes that must have been full of suspense, full of uncertainties and unknown elements, just fall flat in the movie. It is not suspenseful, just different and in many ways absurd. Many times people just act insane, and the reasons are unclear or at best hinted at.

So when this mental pressure fails to come through, the main building piece of the entire story, I thought the story fell through. It wasn't good, it wasn't interesting, it didn't keep me on the edge and it didn't really send a message. Actually it did nothing.

The cast is interesting, many young actors that then turned into stars in beginning of their careers. The acting is good, but not stellar, and a few characters also fell through into the absurd zone. Much of that too I feel is due to that this story, these characters need the time, space and pace given in a novel, that they can't be given here. And going halfway definitely isn't good enough.

4/10


"Midnight Clear" has a great premise. A group of over-educated, overly bright GI's are sent out by incompetent leaders on a vague mission to patrol around an isolated farm house on the eve of the Battle of the Bulge. The GI's encounter a group of battle-weary German regulars, and it becomes clear that they don't want to fight anymore.

Therein lies the problem. It's really pretty simple. If the Germans want to surrender, they do so and that's the end of the movie. If the Germans want to fight, they do so and that's also the end of the movie. So instead of doing either the GI's and Germans play games with each other, even throwing snowballs at one point. Interesting for one or two scenes, but it soon becomes very annoying. After all, these are GERMANS. The enemy. Nothing in this film makes me think they should not be either taken prisoner or shot. The film does noting to make them more human. In fact, much of what the German characters did made ME want to shoot them, including one scene where the German officer refuses to deal with a Jew or to surrender to a mere enlisted man! Why should I care about such characters? Just shoot them and let's move on to the Battle of the Bulge. It's much more interesting, anyway.

One good scene: The GI's are returning from a recon of the German position, where they had the Germans in their sights but did not fire. While walking across a clearing, they realize a group of Germans have their Mausers leveled at them. The Germans are about 100 yards away. The GIs then do something I've NEVER seen any GI's do in any Sillywood movie. They throw down their rifles and throw up their hands! Unusual as this may be in films, it is an entirely sensible reaction to having a rifle aimed at you from that distance. Though it seems far, in reality it's point-blank range for those rifles. I'll lay odds that someone working on this film was a cruffler!


This film captures the short moments between a mother and son in rural Russia, as she lays dying.

I am so torn between being nice to the film or declaring it a test of patience. On one hand, the film is beautiful, with the sparse dialog capturing the essence of their feelings. There is really nothing to say, because everything that needs to be said is conveyed beyond words. The son shows so much care, love and patience towards his mother, that I think it is a celebration of unconditional love towards one's family. It also cruelly reminds me that I could be in a situation like this, stuck in a joyless place, having to take care of a very ill person. "Mat I Syn" is cruel reality.

On the other hand, "Mat I Syn" moves really too slowly. Do I really need to watch a train passing by the horizon for over 1 minute? With my previous experience of "Telets" and "Aleksandra", I am so tempted to put "Mat I Syn" among them as a total bore.

I guess one has to be in the right state of mind to appreciate this film. I surely see the beauty of it, but maybe I am not in the right state of mind.


I loved this movie! It's the finest parody of Russian cinema to date. Who else but Sokurov could lampoon Tarkovsky so brilliantly. You thought "Stalker" was slow? Well, step up to the plate. "Mat i Syn" makes "Stalker" look like "Raiders of the Lost Ark". By no means should you miss this film! There's no excuse - even if you live a busy life, you can still enjoy this film to its fullest by holding down the fast-forward button on your VCR. Sokurov has given us the first feature length film that can be appreciated in 12 minutes.

I suppose the next great masterpiece of the form will come when someone has the vision and courage to exhibit a film that consists of no sound or image at all - 45 minutes of a black, silent screen (wasn't this already explored in "In The Soup"?).

Apparently the filmmaker (and fans) have forgotten that "motion" is the first word of "motion picture".

!!!MAJOR SPOILERS AHEAD!!!

Want to reach the heights of genius that this film achieved? Here's a step by step guide:

1. Find a talented photographer.

2. Find some subjects and a suitably picturesque landscape (think Tuscany!). If you need inspiration, watch some luxury car or perfume commercials.

3. Shoot about 3 rolls of film.

4. Photoshop the results to play around with saturation, blur & aspect ratio.

5. Now just get out your movie camera, film 40 of the best pictures and have your "actors" mumble their lines off-screen. Don't worry about writing it ahead of time - just let the actors say whatever they want (lines like "Do you want a drink?" and "Let's get something to eat" are really all you need to fill up 8 minutes or so). If you can't think of enough dialog - no problem! Just have them repeat what they say a few times. If that still isn't enough, just let the camera run anyway.

Congratulations, another masterpiece! As a bonus, if you want to distribute it over the internet, no problem! The static images will compress down to nothing with standard mpeg encoding - a 73 minute movie would probably be about 2-3 megabytes, even at the highest quality levels.