I can only say this: ee03128 from Portugal, I couldn't say it better. The worst movie I've ever seen... and I've seen lots of crap! When I read you comment I thought only about the thoughts I had while watching the movie. When I saw who was one of the script writers I understood it. Balagueró uses the same tricks in all his movies. And his scripts are not much better either. And, of course, in Barcelona we have tons of temples and churches around the city so we can keep cursed nuns to scare young Americans coming on vacations. Please, be serious! And I do not want to talk about the quality of the actors... There is something remarkable too. It is fair to recognize it. Compared to the usual level, all the Spanish actors use a fairly good English


i can't even describe it. it's the worst movie i've ever seen (i'm being a nice guy when i call it movie).Just another big-budget-made-to-someone-who-doesn't-like-to-think-much.It's not even scary. It's revolting when there are great movies that never reach the big screen and then comes this..."thing" to trick movie fans. I guess big producers make whatever they want.

Just get a big producer, hot chicks (allthough horrible actresses) and a ton of horror movie clichés and cook it for a week or so, and you'll get "The Nun".

And I thought Bad Boys 2 was horrible!!!!


I have spent the last 5 years in the entertainment business and most recently find myself working for the company that made this movie, which is a REAL pity, because I like these folks, I just can't believe ANYONE could possibly make anything as bad as this?!!!! This was crap from every possible angle. From camera work to dialogue to acting to costumes and production design was one of the worst films I have ever seen! The actors in this film looked like they had been taken straight off of a porn that was being shot in the San Fernando Valley and put on a set with an even less talented crew.

I just can't get over the fact that I am sitting on some of the best material I have ever read and contacts within the industry that could help me make my dream a reality and have hit every roadblock possible? Yet the folks behind this spectacle of a film have no problems putting it together and in fact, sleep well after it is released.

Life, what a trip!


LORD PROTECTOR is kiddie fare, but for whose kids? Obviously shot for television or STV, this amateurish rehash KRULL has several stock characters -- a magician, an assassin, a warrior, a scientist -- on the trail of something or other in order to defeat the Dark Forces about to be unleashed on their planet. Badly written, acted and staged in available California locations like municipal parks and a ranch, LORD PROTECTOR has nothing to recommend it, not even as a time waster. Jay Underwood is the only "name" actor, and most people, especially the intended audience of five year olds, are not likely to remember him from such ancient Disney fare as NOT QUITE HUMAN. A no-name actor playing a magician in an ill-fitting silver wig at least plays it with tongue planted firmly in cheek, while those around him act as if they are in a dinner theater production of KING LEAR. I was hoping at least for a decent action or special effects sequence. Alas, the action sequences are pathetically staged and the few special effects are those old fashioned painted-over cartoon gags we used to see in 1950s and 1960s fantasy flicks, like Bert Gordon's THE MAGIC SWORD. The filmmakers planned a sequel that mercifully never came to be. Often, such cheap Hollywood back-lot productions use a combination of legit and porn actors. I kept myself occupied during the film's seemingly interminable running time, trying to figure which was which in this one. I didn't have much luck.


Edge of Madness is a tale about a woman in the 1800's who gets hand-picked by dirty Scotsman who can't keep his penis in his pants. He just so happens to have a younger brother who is against rape and kills him, but continuously says it was an accident. This makes his wife go crazy, she gets delusional and she takes the fall because she loves George too much.

Like I said, this type of thing has been done before. This is just more "artistic" because it's Canadian and it's an indie production done on a low-budget with hardly known actors (except that one kid from Lassie, yea, he's in it). I dunno' whether this was going for Oscar bait, but it was sure as hell boring. And this is based on a 40 page short story. Half of that short story is incorporated into this flick, and I'm glad. Otherwise, I'd bore to death. Unfortunately, I had to watch it in my Media Fundamentals class, and I had an assignment on it. Read the short story and compare and contrast the flick to the story. BORING.

You know, it's harder to answer movie questions when you don't like the movie. Ah well, I hope this is the last type of assignment me and my class get. For what it's worth, Annie Herron was totally hot, she had a nice, soft ass and I liked the nude parts of her in the movie.

3/10 for boring, Oscar bait performance and graphic sexuality..plus nudity.


How can any of you call this propaganda a family film. This is nothing but a PC, insensitive insult to small-town churchgoers. The film portrays a woman as the great white savior of some small Midwestern town, and everyone else in the town (mostly men) are just mere damsels in distress, incapable of honor, who can't fend for themselves and have to rely on the main character for redemption. This film is just some love affair that the producer has with some undisciplined, arrogant, pushy little squirt, who he expects the audience to admire.

The person who made this movie probably spent his whole life in a seeker-sensitive church, and had the freedom to dump garbage on small church members as wacky lunatics and not the majority. The same people who give money to the Salvation Army at Christmastime, collecting donations to help missionaries, the poor and the homeless, singing, fellow-shipping, and making friends with each other. What is wrong with this humble group that offends these self-righteous traitors? Most Christians in this world would step in front of a train and give their lives for any person in trouble, even if they disagree with them. Most Christians wouldn't mind if the pastor, or some church worker, of some church took of his or her coat (or outer shirt). They would not condemn her. This film is ridiculous!


Get the CD instead. The show is tame, and the editing sucks. The crowd gets way too much screen time, as does Till Lindemann. The cameras spend more time on the same kid shaking his head around in the same way (which leads me to believe it's the exact same shot) than they do during Richard Kruspe's solo in Weisses Fleisch. The scenes change so quickly it's impossible to tell where the camera is pointed, and the replays are simply redundant. Not worth the tape it's recorded on.


Not the best of the WIP's, but not the worst either. I honestly feel guilty laughing at this film considering it had to be career lows for all involved. Yet the acting, dialogue, preposterous scenarios, and the ever present boom mic get to me everytime and certainly add to its bad movie charm. As much of a Linda Blair fan I am, top (or topless) honors go to Sybil Danning. Also, special kudos to Henry Silva, who's the only one in the cast who doesn't play his role too seriously. Viewing, the film now, though, makes me look at Stella Stevens character more closely. She plays the head officer, and I have to wonder if this where Hilary Clinton decided to adopt her current look and demeanor. After all, I'm sure she had to look no further than her husband's video collection to find this film. Not that I'm judging. I've seen it several times myself, and it all makes me wonder what would've happened if Mr. Clinton had been allowed to install a hot tub in the Oval Office. Hmmm.


Ugly women-of-the-cellblock flick rakes the bottom of the midnight-movie barrel, combining pulpy sleaze with the hoariest of girls-in-the-shower clichés. Linda Blair plays an innocent sent to jail (we learn offhandedly she was involved in running over some guy with her car), facing hard time in the Big House with some of the nastiest characters this side of a Russ Meyer pic. Blair is continually pawed at, punched, raped, humiliated and harassed. The dialogue is four-letter-word disgusting throughout, and the flick offers no let-up from its barrage of violence and stupidity. Still, some viewers see this as a camp classic, though perhaps its tongue isn't far enough in cheek. * from ****


Sad... really sad. This movie has nothing (hmmm, well maybe Sybil Danning) to keep you watching. It also hurt my eyes to see Linda Blair in this exploitation flick. She certainly deserves better.

So what's the story about? Let's see... Warden John Vernon tapes the inmates in rather inspiring positions, while prisoner Sybil actually runs the prison and little Linda must fight to survive... Sounds like a B-movie, huh? It is.


A lot of actors have a multitude of good movie roles in their soul. Some, a handful. Others, maybe a couple.

Then there's Linda Blair. "The Exorcist". That's it.

When you see "Chained Heat" and watch Linda Blair in it, you have to wonder what, if anything, was running through her mind.

Certainly not, "Oh boy: Oscar for Best Actress, here I come!"

Just another women in prison film like they used to make for the cheap in the '70s, this one actually has names you may recognize. John Vernon plays the dean... I mean, the warden (with a hot tub in his office; wonder what he told the contractor?), Stella Stevens pops up, even Henry Silva and Louisa Moritz show how bad they needed the work.

And special mention, of course, for our heroine Sybil Danning as a bisexual prisoner who puts the moves on poor Blair. To paraphrase, Sybil is as Sybil does and everything Sybil does is done perfect. Makes you forget what a terrible movie you're watching.

Almost.

Two stars. One for Sybil and another for trying to pass off Linda Blair as a sex symbol. Whatever could have possessed them (get it?)?


You Belong To Me was the final teaming of Henry Fonda and Barbara Stanwyck as a screen team and it was a loan out film for Fonda to Columbia Pictures. Fonda had signed a contract with 20th Century Fox in order to get the Tom Joad part in The Grapes of Wrath. But after that it was usually his loan out films that were good while he was cast in mediocre things at Fox.

But the rule was broken here. Though the character he plays bears some superficial resemblance to Charles Pike from The Lady Eve, this film isn't anywhere near as funny. In fact feminists would probably be aghast at it.

In fact Barbara Stanwyck herself didn't like it at all. She liked working with Henry Fonda right enough, but thought this film was ridiculous. As well she should have.

Fonda is another millionaire playboy, who we would now call a trust fund baby who doesn't really do much with his life. He's sort of lovable lunkhead who meets Stanwyck on a ski slope and literally falls for her trying to show off. Turns out she's a doctor and they have a whirlwind courtship and get married.

But it turns out Fonda has a jealous streak, especially when it involves Roger Clark, another millionaire patient of Stanwyck's. And he's not understanding as to her professional obligations.

Stanwyck, like Bette Davis and Katharine Hepburn, was and is a feminist icon. When she tells Fonda that he ought to go out in the working world and live on a salary and see if he can do it, Fonda goes out and gets a job as a salesman in a department store. She's so proud of him, that she actually is going to give up her medical practice and live with him on his salesman's salary.

Today NOW would be picketing the film. Stanwyck did not have too much conviction in her performance, probably because she didn't believe any of it. I certainly couldn't.

I don't think even back then audiences believed it either. But the two stars and the rest of the cast tried their best, but this one was a Thanksgiving special.


Despite having an absolutely horrid script (more about that later), this film is still vaguely watchable just because it stars two excellent actors, Barbara Stanwyck and Henry Fonda. Aside from one or two REAL stinkers, I'd probably watch just about anything with them in the film, as I am a huge fan of Hollywood's golden age of the 1930s and 40s. However, no matter how much I love their films, I just can't recommend this film.

The movie begins with Fonda and Stanwyck on vacation at some ski resort. The two haven't yet met, but the film begins loudly and obnoxiously with a scene in which Fonda horribly yodels while skiing. It was done so unsubtly and made my teeth grind but I stuck it out--especially when Fonda fell into a snow bank and this stopped the yodeling!! In hindsight, perhaps I should have just turned it off then! Fonda is knocked out in the fall and Barbara goes for help. Back at the ski lodge, he seems okay but fortunately she is ALSO a doctor and has him x-rayed and nurses him back to health. He, in turn, becomes infatuated with her and proposes to her. Despite hardly knowing each other, they marry and so far the film seems like a sweet but very slight romantic comedy.

Once home, however, all isn't rosy as she jumps right back into her job as a family doctor and he begins exhibiting signs that he is a controlling and potentially dangerous man due to his jealousy. The film plays it all for laughs, but frankly Fonda's behaviors were really creepy--spying on her and her male patients, attacking or threatening ANY man she treats, tripping a patient who already has a back injury and stomping into a surprise party and insisting that everyone there (men and women) are out to steal away his wife. He comes off as a combination of a sociopath and paranoid schizophrenic, but it's all supposed to be for laughs. Considering that he seems like a dangerous nut, you would think that Stanwyck would file for an annulment along with a restraining order! But, oddly, she gets mad but just can't stay mad at Fonda because he's so........? I can't think of the right word--'creepy' is all that comes to mind!!! Later, out of the blue, multi-millionaire Fonda gets a job working the counter at a department store. Then, through magical thinking, he and Babs seem to assume his hostility and violent jealousy is all a thing of the past--so a job apparently cures anger and suspicions. When this job falls through, the film ends with Fonda buying his own hospital, giving Barbara a job there and they live happily ever after. They don't go any further with the story, but I assume based on Fonda's character that he then spent most of his time as hospital administrator beating up all the male patients.

The first portion at the ski lodge and the next did NOT fit well together, nor did the final "Horatio Alger" inspired section where the rich boy made good in the business world. They were like three separate plots but despite this, the most serious problem with the film was its seeming to excuse away domestic violence and delusional jealousy! What a creepy little film! Thank goodness neither Fonda nor Stanwyck are known for this yechy film but for all their other lovely films.


YOU BELONG TO ME (1941) is a example of the 'ScrewBall Comedy' which started in the mid 1930s and ended postwar (WWII). Some of these films maintained their status. Others have earned undeserved praise when originally were critical and box office flops. Like BRINGING UP BABY (1938) or MR. & MRS. SMITH (1941). Then there is this one which value just keeps sinking.

Why can be rooted in the screenplay/story. It strains credibility from the get go, betraying a superior cast. BARBARA STANWYCK is married to millionaire HENRY FONDA who is insanely jealous. He would be content to sit back with his million$ and love her, she wishes to maintain her profession as a Doctor. She wants him to become in what her eyes is a useful member of society. This conflict is supposed to amuse us. It cannot be salvaged by either the principals or the supporting cast.

The faults in this scenario can clearly be laid at the feet of DALTON TRUMBO. HENRY FONDAs' character is written in such broad strokes that any viewer has a instant dislike for him. BARBARA STANWYCK just has nothing to do but react to each idiotic situation of jealousy. TRUMBO must have been spending to much time outside the studio being a "useful idiot" then being on the job. COLUMBIA obviously did not get their moneys worth from him, maybe ROBERT RISKIN should taken over.


Begrudgingly gave it a 3 - one point each for Fonda, Stanwyck, and the supporting cast.

Never saw this one before - am watching it right now and it has just gotten to the part where Henry Fonda is carrying Babs over the threshold. If I continue watching, it will be just to see if Fonda and Stanwyck will be able to pull this one out of the dumper.

But after reading the other viewer comments, I'm not very optimistic.

The opening ski scenes were enough to put me off my lunch. The voice-overs were obviously done in a sound studio, and the editing between the exterior shots and the closeups was horrendous. I do not know that much about the technology of that era - but I can't believe there wasn't something they could do to make it more believable.

My second gasp of disbelief was when Fonda wiped out and (I imagine due to the extreme velocity of travel) he is burrowed head first into the snow up to his torso - Stanwyck pulls him out with obvious staged difficulty - and, (I imagine because she is such an experienced doctor) does not react at all to his apparently unconscious state and limp posture.

Look, I'm completely capable of suspending my disbelief, but I couldn't get over the fact that she had just jostled a man with a possible head injury and that he might be paralyzed for life. Not my idea of big yuks.

So, as I finish this comment, we have just seen Kirk's first jealous outburst, and Dr. Hunt is off to perform an appendectomy! I'm not sure which I hate more - the script, the background music, or the story!! Argghhhh! I'm done. Game over. Click.


A multi-millionaire marries a female doctor. He hasn't worked in a day and she is devoted to her profession. He sees her off each day. Something has got to give.

Our hero, Henry Fonda, finally decides to do something with his life. He becomes a salesman in a department store but is soon fired as poorer people need the job. In the meantime, Dr. Helen Hunt, (Barbara Stanwyck) has given up her practice? What's there to do?

Kirk (Fonda) buys a bankrupt hospital and the two shall now be happy aiding others while they eke out an existence.

What's with the writing here? When annoyed with her husband, Dr. Hunt says, "You've been acting like gestapo." This is supposed to be a comedy. Hogwash.

A very boring, tedious film. Very little going on here.


Terribly disappointed with CITY OF MEN after being swept away by CITY OF GOD. Lost is the exciting and unpredictable storyline, and instead, in its place, is bland predictability with the obvious attempts at audience manipulation by a superficial pretentious production and distribution team. This story ended up feeling like a sappy soap opera rather than a gritty indie feature, which is what is should have been. This is what happens when distributors try to seek a wider audience (ridiculous sweeping shots of the Rio coastline, etc) at the expense of a gripping story and characters. I really couldn't care what happened to any of the characters in this film - they were all so 2 dimensional. In short, sad waste of potential that should have been a slam-dunk following the exceptionally inspired CITY OF GOD. Boo!


An expedition party made up of constantly bickering and obnoxious jerks go trekking into the dangerous African jungle in search of both a fortune in diamonds and a missing young lady named Diana (luscious brunette looker Katja Biernet, clad solely in a skimpy loincloth that shows off a lot of her hot shapely body) who's worshiped as a goddess by a deadly primitive tribe called the Mabutos. Director/screenwriter Jess Franco crucially fails to inject any style or vigor into the generally blah and meandering proceedings, allowing the sluggish pace to crawl along at an often agonizingly slow clip and staging the infrequent action scenes with a singular lack of skill and panache. The lousy dubbing, excess amount of grainy "National Geographic"-like animal stock footage, groovy, jazzy lounge score, terrible acting, talky, uneventful narrative, tepid soft-core sex scenes, and static photography don't help matters any as well. Fortunately, there's plenty of tasty gratuitous nudity on sight to alleviate the tedium to a reasonable extent: Besides the delectable Biernert, both Aline Mess as fierce, wicked high priestess Noba and Mari Carmen Nieto as the conniving, treacherous Lita are likewise real easy on the eyes. The beautiful jungle scenery is very nice, too. But overall this picture sizes up as barely watchable and hence instantly forgettable swill.


Franco films can be divided into 4 categories- the "earlies" (often black and white and inventive), the "naughties" (late 1960s/early 1970s often involving Soledad Miranda), the "nudies" (of various periods, but using full frontal female nudity as plot drive)and "the rest".

This is part of the "rest". It is not really a cannibal movie at all. It is certainly no gorefest. The few women in the picture dont even lose their loin cloths and there is little full frontal stuff at all. The picture quality on the German DVD I watched is poor. The film peters out (insofar as it ever catches fire). As a Franco fan, I would tell others not to bother. Do something else with your time...read a book....get a copy of "Women in Cellblock 9"...anything really...


Jess Franco makes exploitation films, and he has made tons of them. Franco is responsible for some of the most shocking films in cinema history, and god bless him for it. Unfortunately, The Diamonds of Kilominjaro is a truly awful movie that is not up to his usual standards.

Exploitation films should be judged on story, sex, and gore. What else is there? This film fails on most of those benchmarks. The plot is paper thin, placing a nubile young girl in the jungle among cannibals. We really don't get information on why she and her father were there in the first place. As expected, her father is the "Big White Chief" and she becomes a goddess, sitting in trees, naked. Add fortune hunters and precious stones, and you have your basic rescue the girl for greedy intentions plot line. The characters are stock, not adding an ounce of believability to the proceedings.

Gore? None, or at least very little. This film is often mentioned in the same vein as the classic Italian cannibal movies. Those seeking that type of gore need to run the other way. Save for one cheap be-heading, this movie features surprisingly little blood and guts.

As best I can tell the only reason this movie exists is so Katja Bienert, Aliene Mess, and Mari Carmen Neieto could run around naked. Actually "Lita" (Mari Carmen Neieto) does the full frontal heavy lifting, while the two jungle ladies are bare chested throughout. Yes, there are love scenes....probably the most sterile Franco has ever supervised. The women are beautiful, but nothing here to really make this movie an erotic classic either.

This movie just reeks of low budget buffoonery. The sets are laughable. The acting is horrid, and the editing is confusing. There is no real story to hold this together, and not enough of a budget (or effort) to shock or titillate. I think Franco fans have come to expect more out of the master of exploitation.


A group of adventurers travel to the 'dark continent' to try and locate a lost heiress named Diana, who disappeared years before in a plane crash, and who is now believed to be living with a savage tribe that consider her to be their goddess.

Once again, my search for sleazy, European cannibal movies has taken me deep into Jess Franco territorya seemingly endless cinematic wilderness swarming with sub-par scriptwriting, crawling with crap camera-work, and abundant with awful acting (Franco regular Lina Romay taking the prize this time for her pitiful performance as an ailing, elderly woman). It is here, in this hellish place, that I finally stumbled upon Diamonds of Kilimanjaro, an abysmal jungle-based exploitationer so stupefyingly bad that it took me three successive evenings to finish watching it.

Tawdry and unrelentingly dull, even by Franco's standards, this wearisome piece of trash fails on almost every level: the story is a dreadfully dull derivative of Edgar Rice Burrough's Tarzan, albeit with a feminine twist; the film appears to have been filmed in the local botanical gardens, although grainy stock footage is poorly integrated into the film in a pointless effort to convince viewers that the action is really taking place in Africa; and the death scenes are virtually bloodless (Franco can usually be relied upon for some splatter, but despite initial appearances, this isn't a cannibal movie and it isn't that gory).

Where the director does succeed, however, is in his casting of sexy young Katja Bienert as jungle jail-bait Diana. Running and leaping through the undergrowth in nothing but a skimpy loin-cloth, her curvaceous bod belying the fact that she was only sixteen at the time, this nubile beauty makes quite an impression. Franco also throws in some further nudity courtesy of Mari Carmen Nieto as treacherous traveller Lita (who gives us a glimpse of her untamed regions), and Aline Mess as topless warrior woman Noba, thus narrowly avoiding getting yet another rating of 1/10 from me (although I'm sure he'll be receiving plenty more in the futureI have loads of his films yet to see).


Good old Jess Franco! The always-reliable choice of director in case you're looking for undemanding sleaze, shameless exploitation and 200% gratuitousness. Jess once again really surpassed himself with this utterly trashy piece of jungle "adventure". Let's face it, this film is basically just an excuse to have the ravishingly hot (and underage) actress Katja Bienert parade around topless. It's actually a rather disturbing thought that an innocent 16-year-old girl had to walk around a film set naked in front of a whole crew and particularly before the gazing eyes of pervert Franco! And it wasn't even the first time, since the duo previously already made "Linda" together. Anyways, just in case you wondered: YES, "Diamonds of the Kilimanjaro" does have a plot, albeit a very imbecilic one. During the opening sequences a plane, carrying aboard a wealthy Scottish guy and a girl child, crash amidst an African tribe of vegetarian cannibals. I say vegetarian because they never at one point in the film so much even attempt to consume human flesh. The obnoxious Scot declares himself the Great White Leader and the girl grows up to become the beautiful and scarcely dressed White Goddess. Several years later an expedition reaches the middle of the jungle to get the girl back to civilization and  even more importantly - to steal some of the tribe's legendary diamonds. This could have been a compelling and action-packed adventure movie, but Jess Franco obviously couldn't be bothered. Why shoot jungle chase sequences or bloody cannibalistic rites when you can just as easily aim your camera at a hot young chick sitting naked in a tree? Most of the jungle settings simply appear to be filmed in someone's garden and there's a massive amount of clumsily edited National Geographic wildlife footage in order to fill up the gaps in continuity. The back of the DVD describes "Diamonds of the Kilimanjaro" as an ingenious, feminist and adult orientated version of Tarzan. Yeah right, they just put that sentence there because Katja Bienert's character swings from one tree to another using a a couple of times.


Just saw this movie on opening night. I read some other user comments which convinced me to go see it... I must say, I was not impressed. I'm so unimpressed that I feel the need to write this comment to spare some of you people some money.

First of all "The Messengers" is very predictable, and just not much of a thriller. It might be scary for someone under 13, but it really did nothing for me. The climax was laughable and most of the audience left before the movie's resolution.

Furthermore the acting seemed a little superficial. Some of the emotional arguments between the family were less convincing than the sub-par suspense scenes.

If you've seen previews for this movie, then you've seen most of the best parts and have a strong understanding of the plot. This movie is not worth seeing in the theaters.


First off, the editing of this film consisted of one major flaw which I don't understand how was missed - you consistently see the overhead microphones bobbing in and out of the film. The first time I saw it I just said "well, mistakes happen" and brushed it off. After about the 10th time, it began to get incredibly irritating and distractingly funny. If you haven't seen the film yet, try counting how many times you see the microphone; might make for pretty interesting game.

Now, about the film. This movie started out with the makings of a pretty solid "ghost" story; however, the plot twist at the end just ruined it completely. You begin watching the movie under the assumption, alluded by the TV commercials, that the haunted house consists of ghosts which can only be seen by children; particularly young children, which makes it even more freaky as they will be unable to effectively warn the family of the impending danger. The opening scene did a good job of misleading the audience that this would remain the premise of the film. **(SPOILER)** The movie starts with the family being stalked and ultimately killed by an "unseen" force in the home. The idea that only children can see these ghosts is set in motion when the daughter, at the beginning of the movie, asks her little brother to tell her where "it" is right before "it" grabs her and drags her screaming into the cellar. The young boy also witnesses this supposedly "unseen force" kill his mother after she tells him to hide under the bed. After his family is killed, the boy attempts to run and hide only to be snatched away as well.

As I said, this movie started out with the makings of a pretty spooky movie in which the family would be stalked by an "unseen force" with their only hopes of survival resting on sightings by a two-year-old. This began to be ruined less than halfway into the film as the daughter began to see the ghosts as well; completely ruining the "only children can see" illusion set forth by the commercials and opening scene.

Regardless of this, the movie didn't actually get "ruined" until the plot twist at the end. In which the man who had been helping the family cultivate the farm turns out to have been the man responsible for killing the family at the beginning of the movie. All of a sudden, after being attacked by a swarm of crows, the man snaps and tries to kill the mother, daughter, and son while having a psychotic breakdown in which he believes them to be HIS family; which he killed at the beginning.

The whole plot twist at the end just created a whole list of unsolved questions and left me going wtf. First, why was the family's souls trapped in a house? If the director was going for a Ju-On (The Grudge) approach in which the family, after dying in a fit of rage, would haunt the house and kill whoever enters, why did the haunting stop after the father was "captured" by the ghosts of his family? If the ghosts only wanted to kill the man that killed them, why were they attacking the new family? Here's another one for you. It takes several months from the time you sow seeds until the plants fully blossom in time for harvest. This tells me that the man who killed his family at the beginning, the man that the ghosts apparently had a grudge with the whole movie, was living on the property for months. During all this time, why didn't the ghosts just go kill him?

This movie included a lot of clichéd "horror movie" scares as well as an obvious combination of ideas from other horror movies. However, I'm telling ya, this movie still could've pulled off okay if not for the plot twist at the end. It's like they just ran out of their budget and just threw together something for an ending. For this movie to have been a success, they should've stuck with the "only children can see them" premise and ended with either the family barely getting away or being killed off like the family at the beginning (would've opened the door for possible sequel,too).


I don't expect a lot from ghost stories, but I do expect a story to make a bit of sense! Is that asking too much from the screenwriters and filmmakers? When the bad guy, all of the sudden, becomes a homicidal maniac solely because a bunch of crows start pecking him, then I have a problem spending $9.00 for a ticket! Alfred Hitchcock would be spinning in his grave. Didn't anyone learn anything in their college Film 101 class? A good movie has at its roots an INTERESTING story!

Here are some of the ridiculous messages in this movie: If you have desperate financial problems move from Chicago to the middle of no-where in North Dakota to grow Sunflowers (I kid you not!). If your toddler has serious neurological problems from a car accident move away from some of the best hospitals and speech therapists in the country to an isolated small town, which, at best, has a community hospital. Hire a drifter to live & work with you, out of the blue, without checking any references, when you have a teenage vixen daughter, a wife and toddler. ( I'm glad they're not my parents!)

A town where everyone knows everything would have no problem missing a triple homicide, just outside of town. And, of course, blame the man's lunacy on a bad crop of Sunflowers! (Doesn't anything else grow in North Dakota?) A couple of days after you buy your rundown house - with huge vines growing everywhere - that it reminds you of Jack and the Beanstalk, a guy from the X-Files, ala Smoking Man, (I'm glad to see the cigarettes didn't get him, I guess he doesn't inhale!) will just suddenly sneak up on you while you're working to offer you the sale price of your home, plus 15% more, for absolutely no reason!

I think you get the picture. I have seen so many godforsaken awful movies in the past month, it just blows my mind! Is it that difficult to make a movie that doesn't treat the audience like an idiot? I'm glad at least the crows in this sorry film turned out to have the some brains! I wish I could say the same for whomever thinks they are going to make money off this celluloid piece of trash!


After having problems in Chicago, the Solomon family moves to a remote North Dakota farmhouse to start anew, but their attempts at an idyllic farming life is disrupted when their teen daughter Jess (Kristen Stewart) and her 3-year-old brother Ben start seeing and being attacked by supernatural beings who won't allow them to live in peace.

The Messengers starts off decently although it eventually becomes a generic horror film that's a lot more humorous than frightening. After reading the premise, I thought this could have been a decent movie since it sounded creepy and it held potential. Unfortunately, the film didn't live up to its potential although I should have expected this since the trailer was awful. The screenplay was probably the worst part about it. It was full of silly sequences and bland dialog. The characters were not developed at all and most of them were acting like a bunch of idiots so it was hard to feel sympathy for them.

The directors did a horrible job at building up suspense. They mainly relied on cheap scares like loud noises and random jumps. The music was really over the top and it just made it easier for the viewer to telegraph the next "scary" moment. I also didn't like how they pretty much just used one location for the whole movie. The house was the centerpiece of the story and that's where the majority of the filming took place so it got a little boring after awhile to see the same area. Also, I didn't like the close-ups of the actors. During a conversation, the camera would continually jerk from character to another in the span of five seconds and it got really annoying. The directors did create a decent atmosphere and they do get some points for making their movie stylish. However, since we have come a long way in terms of style and effects, it's not really that hard to make your movie look nice especially if you are working on a Hollywood film.

The acting was atrocious and if this movie had been released in December, I'm sure it would have received several Razzie nominations. Kristen Stewart showed some talent in Panic Room but you wouldn't be able to tell she has talent by watching her performance in The Messengers. She was okay at acting scared and that's it. The rest of the time she was dry and unconvincing. Penelope Anne Miller was just awful when it came to everything. It sounded like she was reading her lines and she had some of the worst facial expressions I have ever seen. Dylan McDermott was just very wooden and he showed almost no emotion. John Corbett gave the best performance and he had a couple of good scenes. The twins who played Ben were also decent and managed to out act many of the adult actors. Overall, this lame horror film is not worth watching because of it's blandness and lazy film-making. Rating 4/10


******Spoilers within******* What a dull, predictable, non-scary snore-fest. The movie had no character development: I felt no empathy towards any of the characters (except may be the small boy), and did not care what happened to any of them. The movie had so many clichéd bits, or elements stolen from other horror movies.

The movie was so predictable. Many times I would be saying to myself, "Let me guess, {fill in guess} happens next?" Yup, I was right. Even in the opening scene, I predicted that the "attack" on the family was by some man, probably the father (because only the wife and children were attacked). Sure enough, that is what happened (of course, you have to wait 79 minutes to find out for sure). And, of course, another "evil man" scenario. Why was he evil and killing his family? Because he's a man, duh!

As someone else stated, this movie may be scary for someone under 13 years of age, or for a movie from the 1970's, but it is FAR from being a 'scary' movie by todays standards. AND, like so many other crap horror movies, a lot of the scares were "fakes". Scary music, Scary music, Scary music, and.....A crow suddenly flies at the window! Wow, scary!

How did the old bank guy manage, a few times, to walk across an open lot without the father seeing him? I thought, for sure, that the old man was a ghost. Nope, just a crappy movie.

I rated this movie a 2 out of 10, because it did keep my attention enough to sit through the whole thing.


Let's cut through everything in the first paragraph. "The Messengers," the newest film by the Pang Brothers (Danny and Oxide), as a horror movie, is profoundly bad. And just as a movie in general, is a big disappointment. It's nothing but a rewarmed "Sixth Sense," and as long as that picture is still available, there is no reason on Earth to pay money to see this turkey.

Lately, horror/slasher films such as the "Final Destination" series, "Wrong Turn," "Boogie Man," "The Ring 2" and "The Grudge," are becoming increasingly more reliant on big shocks with no payoff (for instance, something jumps out at the person on screen, elicits a gasp from the audience, but turns out to be a cat or a crow or something.) Little goes into making it a genuine frightening experience like "The Sixth Sense," or "Signs," or some of the classic horror movies of the 1940s, '50s and '60s.

"The Messengers" relies upon the same old, tired clichés as these newer, far inferior films, and is therefor old, tired and - to my surprise - ended up as one of the most boring movies I have seen in awhile.

The plot has another stupid family, led by dad Roy (Dylan McDermott, "The Practice"), mom Denise (Penelope Ann Miller, "Awakenings," "Kindergarten Cop," TV series "Desperate Housewives"), big sis Jess (Kristen Stewart, "Zathura: A Space Adventure") and toddler Ben (Evan Turner), who move to North Dakota from Chicago.

The reason for the move is never really outlined here, but it has something to do with the dad's inability to find work and Jess' drunken driving escapades. We know there will be trouble immediately because they move into a big Gothic house in the middle of nowhere; a domicile that looks like the Munster's summer home. Oh, and the first five minutes of the movie show something really horrible happened there.

Jess hates the place (hey, who could blame her), but optimistic pop hopes to make a go out of raising sunflowers (despite the unusually large amount of crows fluttering about). But when he meets Burwell (John Corbet, "Raising Helen" and looking like Kevin Costner in the film version of "My Name Is Earl"), an itinerant drifter and expert on raising sunflowers, things start to pick up.

But then weird things begin to happen; Jess is terrorized by a violent unseen force in the house (of course, no one else but the two-year-old Ben can see it, so she's labeled a flake) and the crows keep hanging around. Ben also is able to detect the unearthly creatures, but since he's two, he cannot articulate it. Scene after scene of people telling the little boy to tell them what he sees finally had me wanting to yell to the screen, "He can't tell you! He's two - freaking' - years old!" Yes, have the only protagonist who can solve all of these things be a mute toddler is real smart.

Anyway, we're left to ponder the sanity of Jess; when and if Ben will ever properly describe the paranormal visions he sees; if dad will make the sunflower thing work; if the high plains drifter is a good guy or bad; what the point of the George Plimpton-looking Realtor is; how a pitchfork plunged in the back can only be a flesh wound; what mom's role in the family is; and where are all the crows coming from.

All of this while waiting and wondering for something - anything - to happen. The conclusion is really lame, as well, and once again begs the question of how a spirit which has no physical body can cause harm to a living person. Very dull, pointless and most terrible of all, not frightening in the least.

Oh, and there are a lot of crows in this movie.


This movie has all the ingredients of a great horror story and loses it in the last half. Few movies can actually give me chill bumps. This one did. Few horror movie give me a sense of dread. This one did. It kept me guessing. I cared about the story. I cared about the characters. The acting was decent. Unfortunately, about half way through the movie, the story just doesn't have many good directions it can go. It becomes evident that everything cool about the plot is going to self-destruct. It does. What builds in the first half as a great horror concept shifts away from horror and towards the absurd. A plausible fear turns into a series of implausible reactions from the characters. The story concludes with disappointment. While this movie seems complete, there is one loose end that could setup for a sequel. The movie isn't good enough for a sequel. This movie is worth seeing in the theater, just don't expect to be stunned. This is best suited as a movie to rent. It's probably not a movie you'd want to own.


Despite a totally misleading advertising campaign, this flick turns out to be an irritatingly clichéd, sub-par haunted house flick with a totally implausible ending. Clue #1 for all considering seeing this turkey: Sam Raimi didn't direct it. Although commercials for the movie play up his involvement, in truth he is one of four producers. It's too bad that someone as talented as Raimi has allowed his name to be used in conjunction with such a poor movie. I don't think he would ever have directed something like this; that task was left to the Pang Brothers.

The screenplay for this film seems to have been cobbled together from numerous other "horror" films, so you'll find absolutely zero original content in "The Messengers." What we get are a scene here and there that was plucked straight out of "Pulse," a couple that could have come from "The Birds," one or two from "The Others," etc. Nearly every scene, almost every line of dialogue, is one that has been lifted from any number of other movies. The whole thing makes for such a predictable movie that almost anyone will be able to figure out the "surprise ending" long before it comes.

Right about here would be a good time to point out that the advertising campaign, centered on the idea that only children can see ghosts, has nothing to do with this movie. In fact, everyone can see the ghosts. The teenage daughter and mother characters certainly see them, even quite early in the movie. I'm sure that whomever was in charge of marketing came up with this campaign because the film needed a unique angle to have any box office appeal, which otherwise is entirely absent. Now you know, so don't be fooled! Perhaps what this movie lacks most of all is anything resembling chemistry between the actors. It simply isn't there. All of the interactions come across as awkwardly stilted. Coupled with the hackneyed story and ridiculous plot holes (just what is a guy who murdered his whole family doing still lurking around the small town where the murder happened, anyhow? Didn't anyone think to maybe arrest him?), it all adds up to a profoundly unsatisfying ghost flick that only manages to surprise anyone over the age of ten with cheap shots: loud noises, visual flashes, and anything short of a sheeted figure jumping out of a closet and yelling "Boo!" All we get for our buck this time around is yet another poorly-made film about spirits attempting to warn people away from a house. If there's any message that "The Messengers" delivers, it's "Don't waste your time on this movie."


Well, at least we have to acknowledge the big Hollywood horror-producers are finally getting smarter and more perceptive. Instead of patiently waiting to buy the rights of Asian horror hits and subsequently remake them in America, they now discovered they could simply hire the Asian directors and assign them to make their brand new ghost story directly in the states. That's like killing two birds with one stone; way to go guys! "The Messengers" is pretty much identical to every other supernatural chiller that came out of the Oriental countries ever since "Ringu". Roughly translated, this means it's a boring, overlong and entirely gore-free film, but it does feature copious amounts of false scares and embarrassingly weak "did we scare you yet?" moments. The Pang Brothers (Danny & Oxide) previously made the extremely overrated "The Eye" and it sort of is a tradition for them to build up a story with clues and hints towards a point where it becomes nearly impossible to meet the expectations of their curious audiences, yet they don't seem eager to alter their formula any time soon. And they're also unscrupulous enough to recycle the same old & repetitive ghost topics over and over again. Restless spirits of the previous inhabitants trapped in the walls of a remote countryside farm? The protagonist family torn apart by unprocessed traumas from the past, so they first have to restore faith and trust in each other? Give me a break! Throw in a videotape and a seven-days-curse, why don't you? Even the attempts to make you jump in your seat are too déjà-vu and won't scare anyone over the age of 7. Slamming doors, filthy & gradually larger growing stains on the walls, ghostly appearances, noises coming from the cellar... The endless overuse of cheap tricks like this is almost becoming insulting to horror fans. "The Messengers" revolves on a family on their way to a new life in the country as the growers of sunflowers. The family situation is kind of dysfunctional since a personal tragedy (which doesn't get revealed until late in the film) caused their youngest son to stop talking and the parents to distrust their revolting teenage daughter. Soon after, the children experience strange presences in remote farmhouse, but they don't manage to convince their parents to leave. That's pretty much concludes the entire film. Little Ben sees things but he can't talk and Jessica repeatedly gets attacked by supernatural forces but nobody listens to her. The basic premise of "The Messagers" is very derivative of Stanley Kubrick's immortal classic "The Shining", only it lacks the constantly ominous atmosphere and disturbing tone. The script takes itself far too seriously even though it's fairly easy to predict the final denouement and the total absence of violence and bloodshed is unforgivable. At least "The Eye" delivered some genuine shocks in the end, whereas the happy happy joy joy ending of "The Messengers" is just pathetic. The only positive elements I can think of are the beautiful rural filming locations, the adequate editing job and the promising young acting talents (and beauty) Kristen Stewart. And there's an uncanny, but sadly underdeveloped supportive role for William B. Davis.


Special sneak previews are always a good time. No matter what movie it is you are seeing, the theatre will always be packed by people who have been awaiting the film, like free stuff, thought it'd be something to do, or just got lost. Either way, no matter how good or bad the film, the audience alone will make it enjoyable. Now when said movie is a PG-13 pseudo- horror film (can you really delve into horror when the MPAA is on your back censoring everything?) you know there will be chatter, laughing, and breath holding. With The Messengers, the crowd did not disappoint giving numerous outbursts and warnings to the characters on screen. As for the actual movie, I feel sorry for those involved because it really could have been much better had it been paced right and allowed to stretch its legs beyond the scare/fade-to-black/show aftermath progression these films have. In the end we are shown a boring, plodding story with no surprises and few moments of actual suspense.

The story is a common one. A family moves from the big city to the country after a traumatic event to try and rebuild their relationship with each other. Once settled in, the spirits of the house come out to the reformed troublemaker child whose past makes it even easier for the parents to disbelieve everything told to them. Of course the child is not crying wolf and those around only find out when it is too late. I will credit the Pang Brothers, (directors of the acclaimed The Eye that I would like to watch more than before to see what they can do without Hollywood interferencesupposedly reshoots on The Messengers were done by someone else, but the brothers retained credit; it's a shame what our studio system does to foreigners especially when it was creative independence which made the films that brings them in and not bottomline interference), for really having a fitting style and for keeping the tired plot line somewhat fresh. Unfortunately, though, I also must give them credit for the almost unbearable slowness. Similar to why I disliked What Lies Beneath, I couldn't stand the drawn out suspense, which goes so far as to make it laughable. When our heroine and her brother stand in a hallway with a ghost behind them, the scene lasts about eight minutes with just static, oddly composed close-ups and depth of field focus changes to end up culminating to absolutely nothing. For being only 84 minutes, I almost think it would have worked better even shorter.

Besides a very effective opening sequence, featuring the fantastic Jodelle Ferland, (strangely playing a boy), and a great atmospheric credit sequence, the only thing that saves the film from utter garbage is the acting. Except for Penelope Ann Miller, who first made me wonder what ever happened to her and then, after a few scenes, made me understand why I never asked that question in the years she was absent, and Dustin Milligan, completely lacking in credibility, the acting is very strong. Dyan McDermott does a nice job as the father trying to keep his family together through all the tough times. He has many little moments of light comedy to counteract his serious, dramatic role. William B. Davis (everyone's favorite Cancerman) is used effectively as an almost foreboding character, sadly not utilized more. Our true stars are Kristen Stewart and John Corbett. Stewart plays the emotion very well and shows some promise as an actress with this and Panic Room on her resume. As for Corbett, if he didn't pull off his role, the entire movie would have unraveled completely. I do wish he would be given more work as I've enjoyed him since the under-appreciated series "The Visitor"I still need to check out his first role in "Northern Exposure," a show I haven't yet been able to catch up on. It's a shame he will probably be most recognizable for the overrated My Big Fat Greek Wedding.

If anything, The Messengers gave me a nice introduction to the Pang Brothers' work and reinvigorated my desire to check out their Chinese horror catalog. The mood and performances were there; it was just the simple and vacant story that needed way too much padding to make a feature film. If they delved more into other characters, rather than just Stewart's, it could have been more effective while also having something more to show then ten minute scenes of nothing. If our protagonist is the only one being attacked, there is no suspense as to how far the creatures will go to harm her. The moments of danger had no gravity to them and until the ending really just stood in as filler. I am excited, however, for the free comic book given away after the special screening, as hopefully the medium will allow for a faster paced story that engrosses before it tries to surprise.


My Take: Yet another lame PG-13 horror movie with predictable scare tactics and a derivative plot.

The spirits move. The walls creak. There's something wrong in the basement. These, along with several other horror movie clichés haunt the walls of yet another house in the country in the Sam Raimi-produced THE MESSENGERS, a lame pastiche of the most predictable scare tactics thrown in on a plot savagely recycled from better (and sometimes, even worse) horror movies of the past.

When the Solomon family moves into an old South Dakota farmhouse, in yet another attempt by dad (Dylan McDermott) to reconnect with the family, especially with their formerly drunk-driving daughter Jessica (the underrated Kristen Stewart), in the more subtle countryside than their home in Chicago. The horror ensues when Jessica begins to get little surprise visits from the house's poltergeists. Thinking she's some teenage girl who cried wolf, her parents don't believe her. How could they? The real horror in THE MESSENGERS is waiting for which horror movie it will savage next. Will it be an angry flock of crows wanting more than the family's crops (a direct rip-off of Alfred Hitchcock's masterpiece THE BIRDS)? Will it be the haunted house with a history dating back from THE AMITYVILLE HORROR or POLTERGEIST? Or will it be the grotesque phantoms taken from your familiar recent horrors like THE RING and THE GRUDGE? Heck, the movie even manages to rip-off a scene or two from some truly bad horror movies like AMITYVILLE 3-D and the mediocre COLD CREEK MANOR. Perhaps all the Pang Brothers really wanted to do was a B-level horror movie, but did it have to be this bad? Couldn't they rip-off from the best? Avoid it.

Rating: * out of 5.


This was one of the slowest movies I have ever had the displeasure of sitting through. After the introduction where we are given the backstory of "something" killing a couple people in a farm house, We are introduced to a white looser family that is moving to a farm - AND NOTHING HAPPENS for a looooong time. Then they meet this drifter who helps out on the farm AND NOTHING HAPPENS again for a very long time. Then FINALLY the girl of the family has some plotergeist stuff happens. Then some more happens, the drifter guy goes nuts and the movie ends. In between its all about how this family had to move out becuz the girl got in some trouble back home and they have no money and its done SO POORLY that I could care less about these pathetic people. I cannot believe I actually went to the theatres to see this! Not only did this movie suck, but some a$$hole answered his cell phone, dumb morons were making noise AND the movie sucked. THATS WHY THEATERS SUCK - Bad movies, overpriced crappy food, and idiots in the theatre, I'm staying home and watching DVDs from now on, at least I could smoke if I was at home while watching this stupid movie. Stay home and bake some pie rather than going to a theatre to see this piece of typical crap. Dumb stupid crap.


Directors of "The Messengers" Danny Pang and Oxide Pang are responsible for "The Eye" and its sequel and their premiere American picture plays like "The Grudge"-lite set in a farmhouse.A family of four move from Chicago to a run-down sunflower farm in rural North Dakota.Almost immediately their teenage daughter Jess starts seeing ghosts.Of course her parents and the police are skeptical.Admittedly the film is well-made and there are two or three effective scares,but relies too much on 'boo' effect.Still the plot is a carbon copy of many ghost stories and the ending is anti-climatic and stupefyingly awful.Scares are on the low side too with a tendency toward CGI.Overall,"The Messengers" is a pretty weak horror film that simply doesn't deliver.4 out of 10.


This movie was trying to something, but failed miserably. All the attempts at suspense were cheap, and there were so many tired gimmicks and plot holes I ended up laughing and making fun of it the whole way through. At least I was entertained.

The ghosts are attempting to warn the family, so why do they attack the girl, whose name I didn't care to remember. And what was with the black and white at the beginning? I know what they were trying to do, but they fell far short. And where the heck did that guy (John Corbett's character) come from? He just waltzes in from no where in a vast field. And why did he suddenly lose it again when the ravens came? And if the ravens were a manifestation of the spirits of his family, then why did they attack him if it would make him try to kill the family? Makes no sense. So many things in this movie just don't make sense, and the acting ain't too pretty on the part of the main girl character. It's not terrible, just a little like her kiddy movie days.

So all in all this movie wasn't brilliant, but I had a good time ripping at it, and sometimes that's all a horror movie needs to do. Rent for entertainment not quality.


I almost laughed out loud when during the commentary the director said this movie is original with a strong plot line. There is not one... repeat ONE original plot line or special effect in this blah movie.

The Crows.... Hitchcock did it superbly back before CGI and even with CGI this film falls short of a well done attack scene. The creepy crawly boy... The Grudge did it and did it better. The psycho...done in Cold Creek Manor most recently, however it has been done to death. No pun intended. Disconnected/rebellious teen who no one listens to... about a dozen films have used this one right down to Beetlejuice. The oozy stuff from the basement... can you say Amnityville Horror? Doors opening unbidden... What Lies Beneath did it with much more flair. Creepy farmhouse... too numerous to mention.

The backdrop of metaphysics-- which should have been the central focus, gets lost once you figure out what is happening, which by the way is pretty early on.

One thing (of many actually) they never even try to explain in the movie is how they explain to the police that their attacker was sucked down the ooze in the basement, so they really don't have a body.

Overall... DON'T BOTHER


I'm sorry but I can't agree that this was a good movie. Yes, it looked good visually, but it's the story that drives the movie and I must say the story sucked big-time. How in the world did they manage to slip some of those plot-holes past the critics. Better story and I would've gave it a higher vote but I was impossible to do that and still be able to live with myself. I have always been a fan of scary movies, and the previews really had me fooled. All the scary scenes were shown in the previews. And why did the family that got killed stay to haunt the house? Why did the father come back again? WHy did he decide to kill in the first place? Why were the kids the only ones to see the ghosts first? To many questions, not enough answers. If I could've gave it a zero, I would've.


Spoiler with plot explanation: a poor family is being thrown in the middle of war between the evil guy (that pops out from nowhere, and no questions asked... ) that went wacko, and Casper the friendly ghost trying to avenge his death. With every frame movie gets more and more predictable, a big disappointment. Ending seams completely dumb, it has nothing to od with the movie itself, i think someone run out of ideas or just get to the point that movie is s**t this way or other, so it may as well have a stupid ending. Waste of time, resources and money. Actor play is very poor. If you think about the dialogs you may find out that family conflict is artificially enforced by poor communication between characters. Some scenes seam random. In summary: boring, predictable, poor, pathetic. Waste of time, and money.


The Messengers is a bad,generic and boring ''horror'' movie.The film has got a big problem:it does not scare.The performances and the screenplay are totally stupid.It uses old tricks for scaring and all the supernatural events make laugh.I would not call The Messengers as a bad movie...I would call it an accidental comedy because it's so bad that makes laugh.The only good thing about this movie is that it's short,so this crap will not stay with us for so long.There are a lot of masterpieces of horror genre which count with a low budget(like Subject Two,Lucky or May)which are sadly ignored,while this crap is all a success in the box office.So,I do not recommend this weak and pathetic horror film which is called The Messengers.


You're Dead is an indescribably awful attempt at a British gangster film. It has not got a single original idea in it, being an atrocious copy of various elements of Lock Stock & Two Smoking Barrels, The Usual Suspects and Pulp Fiction. The acting and dialogue are absolutely excruciating, the plot is ludicrous and utterly predictable despite constant attempts at plot twists, and contains nothing but one dimensional stock characters and clichés. It has some good actors in it, but they are off-form, and unable to do anything much with the dreadful material they are working with. It is absolute torture to sit through this drivel.


Theres not much you can really say about this film except that it was crap and probably the worst film i have ever been to see!! Take my advice don't watch this film it just wastes your money and time!!

I gave this film a 1/10 which is doesn't deserve.


This film is strictly for fans of Debbie Reynolds and Eddie Fisher.

I get angry at TCM for showing this mess more frequently than Bachelor Mother, the delightful original. I get angrier still that some Hollywood boob thought it would be a good idea to remake Bachelor Mother, filling it with some lame songs that only serve to interrupt the flow of a cute comedy. Instead, Hollywood could have spent the time, money, energy and talent wasted on this horrible remake to give us something new and original - Wow, what a concept!

Bachelor Mother (the original), with Ginger Rogers and David Niven is a spicy stew, simmering with sexuality. It is a 1930's wink at the Hays Office. Bundle of Joy (the remake), with Debbie Reynolds and Eddie Fisher is strictly milk and cookies. It is a 1950's handshake with Eisenhower.

Which cast would you rather watch - Debbie Reynolds, Eddie Fisher and Adolphe Menjou, or Ginger Rogers, David Niven and Charles Coburn? For me, every member of the cast in the original version is far better than his/her counterpart in the remake.

In the original a beautiful, young Ginger Rogers is at her peak. David Niven delivers perfectly as a somewhat spoiled, sophisticated and yet befuddled scion of a wealthy department store magnate. And I always love to see Charles Coburn in a movie. In Bachelor Mother, he is priceless as the desperate grandfather wannabe.

In Bundle of Joy Debbie Reynolds is her usual perky self. She is fine in this role, although her performance (along with Fisher's) completely changes the tone of the story. As an actor, Eddie Fisher is hopeless. He is completely lacking in screen "presence." Here he is way too wholesome for this story. His acting is completely bland and clueless. Likewise, his singing is so bland and unremarkable that it has been completely forgotten by the world at large. The only time he is not completely painful is in Butterfield 8 - where, incidentally, he doesn't sing. Here, Fisher's lame performance alone is enough to ruin this movie. Adolphe Menjou, a favorite character actor, delivers a competent performance, but not one of his best. He is more blustering than commanding. He and Fisher are not convincing as a father and son.

Do you see a musical for the music, the story being merely incidental? Or do watch a musical for a story, with some (hopefullly) good music used for seasoning? If the former, you might like this lame remake. Otherwise you are much better off watching the Ginger Rogers non-musical original, Bachelor Mother.


Eddie Fischer was simply bad. Possibly the worst scene came early in the movie when he broke into a spontaneous song and dance number centered around a piano and some conveniently placed employees. The song was totally stupid... I think I could drunkenly offer a few lines on a sheet of paper that would far exceed it and probably win a Grammy. Then, as if the writers could come up with no better way to escape the ridiculousness of the scene, Fischer says something to the effect of, "Don't tell (insert the guy's name). He doesn't like music" and smiles. I can't describe how bad this is, I felt a little embarrassed. And that guy Debbie Reynolds works with and who's always hitting on her is so annoying too. I can't even imagine someone like her wasting a fraction of time on him. The jokes were delivered without any sort of chemistry between characters which made the movie crawl by. At least the baby had cute hair. The two stars are for Reynolds, who was like a swan among ugly ducklings.

See Bachelor Mother instead.


I saw this piece of pseudo-intellectual crap a couple of years ago, and it is now making a comeback at the local film club. It uses every cliché in the Intellectual Movie Makers Handbook (Beginners Edition) in order to appear as intellectual as the director probably imagines himself to be. You get your run-of-the-mill slow-motion tempo, brown color scale, slow pans through bombed-out environments, blank, suffering facial expressions, over-symbolic imagery, and the requisite miserable ending.

It is a complete failure, an unintentional perfect caricature of the typical Russian art movie. The director, Aleksandr Sokurov, has excellent command of technique, but he lacks eye. He doesn't see when he crosses the line into the realm of the pathetic.

This movie is a wet dream for art film haters. It lives up to every stereotypical view of the genre that there is.

If it was bad in an entertaining way, it would a turkey. But for a movie that is so bad that you walk out afterwards royally p***ed-off, we need a new term. This movie is a Sokurov.


I'm a big fan of Patricia Hodge and Mariam Margolyes, so I watched this show when it came on A&E some years ago. The show was strange to say the least, but I gave it a chance because I liked these actresses. This has got to be one of the worst shows I've ever seen. I wouldn't watch it again and certainly wouldn't waste money on buying the video. The storyline of this TV version is ludicrous and just plain stupid! The "kicker" (pun intended) comes when Ruth has surgery done on her leg bones. That kind of nonsense belongs in James Bond and Sci-Fi movies. If this version is true to the book, then I won't be checking the book out from my local library! The American version came out some years after I'd seen this original. To my surprise the Americans got it right this time, as their version with Meryl Streep and Roseanne is played for laughs and is rather funny. When played for laughs the storyline works.


I'll give it a two because it has a lot of music, otherwise it would be a one.

I saw this movie for the first time tonight and it's the first "Road" picture I've seen. I was expecting waaaaay better. Robert Osborn says this is the best of the Road movies. If that's true I needn't bother to see the others. The best thing about this movie is that it has a lot of songs in the first half, but that's balanced out by only one production number with dancing in the entire movie.

I didn't like the movie. Neither Hope nor Crosby came across all that well, their characters weren't very charming, the movie was not funny at all, most of the dialog was just lame filler, there wasn't much action, there wasn't much spectacle.

The movie wasn't what I expected. I was expecting more "Road," but there isn't much. They quickly make it to the palace and then most of the movie takes place there, until the end. I was also expecting a lot more of the famous "road" style of breaking the fourth wall, wherein the characters talk directly to the audience or comment on the plot. There was only about 4 instances of that. One of those is an example of the non-funny humor of this script:

(Hope recaps the plot up to now to Crosby) Crosby: I know all that! Hope: Yeah but the people that came in half-way through the picture don't. Crosby: You mean they missed my song?

Those are two weak punchlines, but at least they are actually jokes. Much of the rest of the script doesn't even have any jokes. An example is:

Crosby: Remind me to throw you a piece of cheese in the morning. (Indirectly calling Hope a rat).

That's not funny at all, it barely even qualifies as a joke, but that's the kind of non-joke dialog that carries most of the movie. Many of the scenes don't even come that close to a joke, just using generic uninteresting dialog like:

Crosby: Hey, whadda ya' take me for? You think that you can just throw me to the dogs? Hope: Well why not, you did it to me didn't you? Crosby: Yeah but that's because I was lookin' out for us. You're not lookin' out for nobody. Hope: Oh yeah? Well then why did I pay the check?

(the above is just from my memory. It's not exact but it illustrates to you what I mean).

And so on....just generic dialog with no jokes at all.

My grade: A waste of time.


When a friend and I saw this in the recent releases, we decided to get it despite the fact that neither of us had heard of it before. We both like Costas Mandylor and it had James Coburn so we figured it couldn't be that bad. We were wrong. It was. It was REALLY that bad. No actor or actress could have made this film worth seeing. It was like taking Titanic, The Poseidon Adventure and some nuclear bomb film and trying to cut and paste it all together.

I must admit that there were a couple of chuckles. I did laugh when the head cabin boy is asking Alan (Costas Mandylor) if he's some "pussy marine." The other laughs this film got though had nothing to do with the writing. I would dearly love to know how the people making this movie thought that you could have a cruise liner knocked upside down and have it remain steady. It isn't tipped or anything.

If you are looking for something to watch for Costas Mandylor, James Coburn or any of the rest of this cast, move on. Find something good that they did.


In my opinion, this movie is not good. I hardly find a good thing to say about it, but still I would like to explain, before I conclude it is just another bad movie.

I decided to watch it because Costas Mandylor is starring in it, and that was the main reason I watched it till the end. I like action movies, and I understand that such movies are built on the action rather than the story. I know they don't go into details when it comes to the credibility of the story and the events, but even that does not explain why some scenes, just because they lack the sense of reality, look ridiculous.

At the beginning, the movie looks quite promising: a tough, good looking specialist and his not so tough but smart and funny partner must do a job, which turns out a bit different than they expected. The story takes place on a cruise ship. A disaster happens, the ship is turned over, and only a few are left alive. During their struggle to survive they have to escape a shark, a professional killer and the rising water.

Furthermore, the movie is quite violent. The main weapon (beside the disaster which already took out most of the passengers) is the gun, which is successfully used in many cases. I personally missed a good man to man (or woman to woman if you prefer) fight. Family fun? I don't think so.

All in all, I think this movie was shot in a hurry, without a real vision what it is trying to say. Made of the usual action movie tricks, with a bit of something called love, and without a real meaning, it just results in a bad movie.


Shirley Temple's films for Twentieth Century Fox aren't negligible because they're poorly-made (Darryl F. Zanuck supervised most of them, after all); they don't retain much of a "classic" stature among cinema aficionados mainly because they're weighed down with the syrupy optimism of Depression-era Hollywood. 1930s audiences were placated by the delight of seeing a dimply, often orphaned sunshine girl making the grown-ups look foolish by comparison (they fretted and wrung their hands while she danced her troubles away). Seen these many years later, Temple's vehicles barely get by on story (aided always by musical sequences to bolster the content), and her timing (always too-perfect) and exaggerated reactions might leave most modern viewers rolling their eyes. No one could possibly be blamed for their exasperation over Temple's performance here (shouting lines at the top of her lungs) or the perverseness of her dance steps, sashaying with a crowd of sailors to "At the Codfish Ball". Still, the fantasy aspect of this particular story, previously filmed in 1924 from the book by Laura E. Richard, is enough to captivate those in the proper saccharine spirit. Seems Shirl was pulled from a shipwreck by a government-appointed lighthouse keeper, but when a truant officer from the State Board finds out the tyke isn't in school, she threatens to take the kid away. It doesn't really matter if the prune-faced officer has a point that Temple isn't being raised properly (the woman is turned into the proverbial villainess almost immediately); one can see right away that Temple can hold her own, taking care of herself and her elderly guardian in the bargain (as well as the local widow who has her hooks in for the Captain). Temple isn't the only one overly-rehearsed; Guy Kibbee's January is cued for wide-eyed reactions so often you wonder if maybe if he didn't film them all in one day. The dialogue is steeped in waterfront metaphors ("You can't rush a trout!" ... "Well, don't give up the ship!), and something about the whole enterprise seems strangely pixilated. ** from ****


I was a still photographer working in Europe the summer that Jim Salter shot the movie Three.

I did some swell pictures for him, one of which I was told became the poster for the movie. I didn't see the film until years later. I thought it was bad. A pity, because the elements that went into it were compelling. Robie Porter's girlfriend was almast as beautiful as Rampling herself. Salter asked if I would stick around and be an extra cameraman so they wouldn't have to shoot everything twice. I said sure, but I had to return to NY, promising I'd be back. Alas, I never did get back. One of life's unsung melodies.

I wish I could post the pictures I made somewhere.

Rowland Scherman


No doubt about it, Rampling is gorgeous -- a classic beauty, here very young. She manages to appear simultaneously sophisticated and poignant. Her two male foils act well too. But seen in 2003, the flic is all

American-trying-to-be-artsy-and-not-be-Hollywood-while-shooting-beautiful-sh ots-of-the-French-Riviera-and-three-pretty-young-people-in-their-cute-old-ca r. I enjoyed the view (both the actors and the nature) but the movie is boring and pretentious while trying to be the opposite.


If you haven't read Tolkien's masterpiece; prepare yourself for maybe the best movie experience ever! If you have however... After having read the books several times, over many years, I have come to love the characters and story, and feel I Know it intimately. I have my own personal vision of The Shire, Hobbiton and the character-gallery. Thus for me the movie was a disappointment. Why? It dictates the appearance of the characters (unavoidably), it changes events, it removes important storyline, it removes not-so-important storyline. Great chunks of what makes The Lord Of The Rings what it is, is simply ignored. Even 2001 special effects can't do Tolkien's (and your own) imagination justice. Peter Jackson has made an honest attempt at the impossible, and I don't think anyone else could have done it better! But the fact remains, I regret seeing the movie. The next time I read The Lord Of The Rings, Peter Jackson's limited vision will leap forward, not my own.


First off, I am a huge fan of Tolkien, and as one I will base most of my critic on his books.

The movie is a standard adventure movie, well made with nifty special effects, nice sound track and fine acting. Now if this movie was called something else than lord of the rings the reviews wouldn't be half this good as they are here.

The problem of the movie is that it takes the basic story line from Tolkiens books but then it goes and "hollywoods" everything it can, numerous scenes from the book are eighter missing or changed quite a lot, the characters are changed from the book also, a thing that I think should be punishable ! What the movie lacks is deep insight of the characters in it, I know that it is almost impossible to make a good film out of a good book, and it didn't work here eighter, mostly the motivation of the characters is left hazy at best.

As a adventure movie it would rate 7+ / 10 As a adaptation of Tolkien it rates 2 / 10

I mean honestly, what on earth was Arwen doing at rivendell ford ? And as for the comments that this movie "is the best ever" I can only say that eighter you are very young, or you havent seen good movies...

Peter Jackson should have called this movie an adventure movie based on the lord of the rings.


Debbie Boone had a monster hit with her recording of the pop song "You Light Up My Life;" the Didi Conn film of the same name, however, was a horrifically embarrassing flop. Conn plays the stereotypically goofy-homely-vulnerable girl who is in love with Michael Zaslow, who plays the stereotypical yuppie-wannabe guy. They are engaged, but every one knows that Zaslow isn't going to marry any one that isn't blonde and built, so only Didi is surprised when he dumps her. Needless to say, Didi is quite embarrassed.

Fortunately, she has been doing a little songwriting in her spare time, and she's come up with a tune she thinks is pretty nifty. She calls it--can you guess?--"You Light Up My Life." She hops in the car and drives off to the big city to sell her song and make a new life. Now, I recall sitting in the theatre and watching her hop in the car to drive off to the big city, and thinking "Well thank heavens, we've finally got all the exposition out of the way. Now maybe something interesting will happen." And something interesting did happen. The credits rolled.

Yep, that was it. Not only was the movie badly acted, badly written, and badly filmed, it also ended in the middle. This movie is a really, profoundly bad movie, and we're not talking cult-movie-bad here. We're talking unmitigated flop, a real yawner from start to finish. If you liked the Debbie Boone song by all means buy a copy of it. But don't waste your time or money on this flick. This is one movie you'll be glad you missed.

Gary F. Taylor, aka GFT, Amazon Reviewer


I remember this movie with feelings of sheer . . . agony. More than half of the film is commercials (no, really!). The slight excuse for a story could easily have been told in 25 minutes (and almost is!) The end result is a prefab love story of predictable schlock, all obviously thrown together in a crassly commercial attempt to wring a few more bucks from the contemporary Debbie Boone hit. Yep, that's how fast it was produced... the song that "inspired" it was still big on the charts when the film was released!

Despite decades of seeing bad movies, this one still impresses me for its extravagant, no-holds-barred, headlong jump into the most tedious, absurd, and indelible cinematic badness. It truly deserves to be on the IMDb list of the 100 worst of all time, and has never left the top 3 on my personal "worst" list.

Enjoy it for the sheer masochistic thrill!


I enjoy gay-themed movies where the characters aren't stereotypically gay and that's what attracted me to this movie, that and the principal actor, which is the only reason I'm giving this movie one more star than it deserves (although not because of his acting in the film, let me tell you). A lot of people complain about the cinematography, but the camcorder feel of the movie added a certain "underground" quality to it for me and there are a couple of scenes, usually around sunset or sunrise and among trains that would make any movie screen blush.

But the acting is cardboard, the music is repetitive (I got through the latter half of the movie listening to a soundtrack from another film), you have to wait almost twenty minutes for any dialog and then it is awkward and amateur. The subject of graffiti could have made this movie great had it been gracefully exploited and had the art itself been more intriguing, but it isn't.

Worst of all, there is no climax; there wasn't really a plot to begin with. The movie just crawls back into its shell of silence and dies. A forgettable movie.


I give this movie 2 stars purely because of its slightly liberal plot line. Without going into too much detail.

The acting in this movie is terrible. Really terrible - wooden, shallow.

The graffiti on show is weak, so bloody weak that I can only wonder why they bothered to use graffiti artists at all. IT was obvious in the spraying scenes that they'd gotten other people in to do the 'work'. They might as well have let the actors do the painting and saved themselves a few cents.

I would avoid this film at all costs.

The kid loco soundtrack used to be something I listened to on my iPod, its going to be a while before I can go back there for fear of this movie coming back into my mind.

Avoid at all costs. Unless you are thinking to yourself "Wow, its been a while since I've seen a really sh*t movie...."


I wasn't impressed with the Graffiti Artist, despite it's artsy (aka. low budget improvisation) appeal. There is little dialog and at least for me, I was disappointed that it didn't give more credit or promote the work of guerrilla artists such as these. Instead, it was a story that covers familiar territory. Two guys who basically do little more than tag buildings become friends, tagging partners, and eventually experiment with a relationship. They seem like opposites, rather uncomfortable together. Little is explained about their backgrounds and the things between the two young men happen at rapid speed (although, this I can understand because it's only 70 minutes or so). There's been countless numbers of similar plots and productions in recent years to the point that the sphere of independent film is starting to become just as saturated with this particular storytelling just as the mainstream has become saturated with this and more.

Much of the film may bore the viewer who needs immediate dialog and purpose. The primary figure of this story (at least extensively), performs his routines with nearly no dialog, no insight, and nothing else to carry the viewer. And, for a short film, I wished they could've gotten to the point a lot faster. That, aside from the typical plot annoyed me. Yet, there was something about a momentary glimpse into the daily habits of at least two graffiti artists, even if most of it was rather unoccupied time.

Recommended if you're tired of the mainstream crap and don't mind an indie picture and have some interested into this underground, urban art form. But, you really have to watch it for yourself, because this seems to be one with a more acquired taste. For more recent indie films centering on graffiti artists, check out Transit.


Other reviewers seem to have held this film in high regard. For something made by an eighteen year old film student, I would say bravo, but that is not the case. If you want to watch a good movie about graffitti stick to the documentaries. It is filmed with the same quality as a digital home video. The two main characters are dismal actors and once again that would be okay if this were a student film. The plot follows a lonely artist who skateboards around Portland writing graffitti. He is joined by another and they skate around together creating art. Then comes the unnecessary gay love scene. Then comes the dispute between them that is never actually discussed because this film has about as much dialogue as a charlie chaplin picture. This movie does show the gravity street artists give to their form well, and the music is nice, but overall I wouldn't really call it a film.


How did this film get into the Berlin Film Festival? I understand it got into the Panorama section, but still.

This film featured:

1. No plot. 2. Horrible acting. 3. Atrocious videography. 4. Some of the worst graffiti ever captured on video.

The one clincher that accounts for most of its festival acceptances is the presence of that old standby: homosexuality. That's right, about the only thing that does happen in this film is that one graff artist makes out with another one and jerks him off. Then he feels weird about it and they have a boring old "breaking up" conversation that you might expect to hear from your first crush in middle school (featuring lines like "You kissed me first, dude."). Oh, and by the way, this is no Crying Game...you see the gay angle coming in the first ten minutes of the film. Aside from that it's mostly just bad tags, badly costumed "undercover" cops, some skateboarding, and a train ride.

If the subject matter is of interest to anyone I recommend looking around the web for some underground graff videos taken by real graffiti artists. There's plenty out there...and they are a hell of a lot more entertaining than this crap.


I didn't understand the people who rated it over 5. I think it's a horrible film from any point of view. Plots, acting, art, dialog, music, whatsoever! I don't mind a low budget..However you have to get some point. Wandering, wondering..pointless..then two boys started kissing in bed. awful,,just awful. I love indie films, don't mind it is slow. However this movie disappointed me from any perspectives. Even the Graffito, not artistic.

I was wondering what kind of people would like it. I am a female in my 30's. Is it for teens who have some kind of the loneliness about life, or I just don't get it? What I gained then? Wasting time! Please go for some others.


I wouldn't have given this film such a low rating (2) if its average hadn't been ridiculously high, but someone had to bring it down to something more reasonable. I sat through most of this film, watching scene after scene of tagging and shoplifting. No dialog, just tagging and shoplifting. Finally the two taggers kissed. Something happened. But then back to tagging and shoplifting. I left the screening. I recommend this film only to those who are impressed by pretentious film-making. I disliked the directors previous film (a self-righteous defense of man-boy love) but at least that film had a story, interesting characters, dialog. The Graffiti Artist had only scene after scene of tagging and shoplifting. I want more from a film than this.


This movie is a gay love story disguised as a tale of graffiti and friendship. Not ONE review described this movie as a gay romance film, and that's the weight of the plot. I don't know if this was to trick people that would otherwise be uninterested to sit through it, expecting the film to be as it was marketed... The film is out of touch with graffiti culture, abuses and defames graffiti culture, and the acting is abysmal. Oh yeah, the graffiti sucks too. This movie was a clever way to hide the agenda of portraying young boys getting gay. Just look at the rest of the movies the director's been involved with, all contain the same subject matter. Boring as hell, not what I expected.


This film has made e mad. I believe the original of this film ,'The Mask', was an awesome film, worth buying and watching a lot. I strongly believed that they should make a sequel, but when i saw this, i thought again.

This film has spoilt the whole idea of 'The Mask'. Mask mode? A baby flying around in a room? My little brother who is seven didn't even laugh, and he is into these childish movies, but this was worse. A load of crap!! I am telling you now, please do not watch this film, it is a waste of money and a waste of time. Instead you could actually be having fun! Watch 'The Mask', but do not, I repeat do NOT, watch this hunk of junk. Thank you.


Mr. Kennedy should stop ExPeRiMeNtIng with bad movie scripts. What WAS he thinking? This is a movie that should not have passed the "hey, I've got an idea, let's make a sequel" stage of inception. If there was a ZERO rating, I'd give it, but I guess I'll settle for a generous 1. It seems these days that if there is a buck to be made, movie execs will dig up an old hit and run it by a set of writers and see what turns up. (Hey, I said "hit and run"! Kinda describes how I felt when this movie ended!) How THIS piece of trash ever saw the light of day is beyond me. It is filled with unpleasant humor, strange animation and jokes that don't quite take you anywhere besides a state of confusion. If you are being dragged to this movie, and someone is paying for you....fine.... but its still going to be more painful than a brick in the forehead. However, if you're planning on paying your own hard-earned money, search out a better alternative.


This is without a doubt the worst movie I have ever seen. I say this without hyperbole, and believe me, I've seen a lot of bad movies. It's embarrassing and annoying that millions of dollars went into this film and that hundreds (thousands?) of craftspeople spent so much time working on what the writers and producers MUST have known would be a colossal failure.

When a 90 minute film feels this long, drawn out, boring, and incomprehensible, you know that something went wrong somewhere. Also, Jamie Kennedy (whose work I've enjoyed elsewhere) is simply terrible in this role; he was obviously never given a screen test, because no producer in their right mind would consider him entertaining in any way, especially in the guise of The Mask. Simply awful.

Personally, I can't wait to see the reviews by the major film critics, because I know they're do a better job than me at tearing this train wreck to shreds.

The producers of this film should be embarrassed, and more importantly, NEVER be allowed to make theatrical films again.


What the hell is this movie about? Well, if I didn't know that "son of the Mask" is categorized as comedy, I would never have a clue! A comedy? A tragedy, that's the right genre for this yet-another-so-called-sequel.

Yes I've watched "Dumb and Dumber" but I never believed somebody will ever make it's title real in Hollywood. Yes, You watch "Son of the Mask" and You think.. 5 minutes - Dumb... 10 minutes - Dumber... 15 - minutes Dumbest... And then, after 16 minutes there is only one thing to say :/ I'm out of here...

Sorry, my nominee for Comedy Crap of The Year 2005.


I can just picture how this movie came to be:

"So how else can we screw up our careers?"

"I know! Let's take a film that was wildly successful and make a sequel out of it!

"Perfect! We'll get B-grade actors who have half the charisma and want only 10% of Carrey's original salary. We'll save millions and rake in a massive profit, never mind the fact nobody wants to see a second rate sequel with none of the original actors that made it popular in the first place! We as executives still honestly believe a movie was popular based on the name and story, not the actors who made it so in the first place!"

"Brilliant! Let's put a massive budget and get the cheapest actors we can find!"

And really, that's what Son Of The Mask can be described as. Just a simple B-grade movie that attempts to suck the life out of it's original classic.

Nevertheless, if the movie didn't contain the words the mask, or anything to do with the mask, it would be a nice kids movie. For all it's massive flaws and horrible acting, this really will appeal to kids. It's a good natured flick that really wants to scream out "like me!" but only those 8 and younger will truly enjoy it.

Jamie Kennedy is the only worthwhile mention in this movie. He clearly is trying to make the material work, playing the desperate dad but the script is so poor, the only thing that spews out that is worthwhile was my drink after seeing this. The character of Loki also deserves a mention, as he was the most enjoyable character and really one of the only reasons for older adults to see this film. It's too bad the character is wasted on this film, I would have really liked to have seen the character take on the true mask. Instead, we are reduced to fart jokes and toilet humor near the end.

The plot is so much by the books, I won't bother to mention it here. It's all so clearly obvious that even a Disney exec would be green with envy.

Save your money, this one is heading to DVD in three months from the looks of it. Shame on the studios for once again smearing a decent film with a horrible sequel. Didn't dumb and dumberer teach them anything?


My wife received tickets for our family to attend the premier of this movie from her employer for free. I only regret the price of the popcorn and the two hours of my life wasted on this garbage film.

I own the DVD of the original Mask, and quite enjoyed it. I expected a remake nowhere near the original in production values or writing.. but wasn't prepared for this vulgar pile of trash. Weak acting, poor plot, a bad CGI baby passing gas and urinating in hyper "mask mode".. a woman turned into a giant nose, spewing mucous.. Fun huh? My eight year old son loves movies like Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter and Star Wars. After this was over I asked him what he thought. His exact words; "I hated it. It's like the Scooby Doo movie. They take something good and have to put all that gross stuff in." My twelve year old daughter and wife hated it as well. My wife later told me that my son asker her twice during it if we could leave. He's never done that before. I'm proud of him. Lest you think I'm some kind of puritan, from the groans, and lack of laughter I heard in the theater, I think most of the patrons agreed with me.

This film represents everything bad about children's entertainment today, and any positive reviews MUST be from people financially connected with the film.