Exceptionally bad! I don't expect much from Garcia since he is one of the most overrated actors today but Keaton really should have known this movie would suck and gotten out while he could (not that I'm especially fond of him but hey, he did batman).

In one scene Keaton is transported to a hospital chained down and wearing a Hannibal Lecter kind of face mask when two attack dogs bark at him (dogs can sense evil you know (puke)) and Keaton growls back at them making them back off and whine with their tails between their legs. Did the movie turn comedy right there? Garcia makes a fool out of himself in an interrogation scene with dialogue only a complete retard could find plausible and the kid is too annoying to feel sorry for..

If you are gonna make a movie with as poor a plot as this you need some charm, humour, some solid action. Take Die Hard for example which is great despite its rather crappy plot.

Even though Keatons character was a joke i routed for him all the way. I wanted to see Garcia cry over his dead kid and Keaton sipping martinis on some paradise island, however! This movie makes for a good laugh.. Watch it with a witty friend and you can have some fun as this movie begs for wisecracks in almost every scene.

All in all its an insult to one's intelligence and a huge waste of money. Greed made this movie and thank god it bit its own ass.


This movie, "Desperate Measures", was.... I'm not quite sure how to even put it into words. Was this supposed to be a comedy? I couldn't stop laughing at how absolutely ridiculous it was. I love Michael Keaton, and I cannot actually comprehend that he did this. They did a good job at keeping my attention because I couldn't wait to see how much more ridiculous it was going to get minute by minute. I actually just registered on this site so that I could get this out. I don't review movies. I don't have time for this, but I cannot let this go knowing I haven't done my civil duty by letting people (those who have an IQ of 85 and above) know that this is no action/thriller, It is honest to goodness funny. You people that actually got thrills off of this scare me. Go watch a good movie like Million Dollar Baby. Clint Eastwood's acting is not superb, but I was balling at the end. Exercise your brain America!


This plot had more holes in it than an OJ Simpson alibi!

I noticed two Star Trek references in the movie and, yet,

ironically we have a lead character played by Andy Garcia

who is the antithesis of the Vulcan philosophy of, "The

needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or one."

Let's just say that while trying to save his son from cancer he puts most of the rest of San Francisco at incredible risk. Michael Keaton's character is almost as

unrealistic as well. He neglects to kill at numerous opportunities and yet is angered when Garcia foils his

attempt to kill a bunch of cops at once. The child's doctor remains in charge of her faculties even after been

held hostage several times in a short expanse of time but

put her on a wide walkway 5 stories up and she loses it.

Andy Garcia's child is something of an anathema in this

movie. He is the most sympathetic and real character, one of the movie's bright spots. He furthermore utters a line, that must have been the result of serendipity, regarding fighting cancer that parallels Keaton's motivation to escape. All in all, the movie was not a

complete waste (see From Dusk to Dawn 2: Texas Blood Money

for that) but disappointing considering the talent on hand.


I haven't seen Ishtar, but I did have the misfortune of seeing Kevin Costner's Postman, This is worse. Maybe the absolute worse piece of garbage I have ever seen, and if you look at my review for Moulin Rouge? that is saying something. Bad plot, acting was substandard and even wasted (even though, yes, Michael Keaton has been in some of the worst movies I have ever seen), and this movie has no redeeming value to anybody with more than half a brain. DO NOT SEE IF YOU HAVE GRADUATED THE 4TH GRADE as you will find this an insult to your intelligence.


There seems to be a whole sub genre of cheap, tired old sex "comedies" out there, that say the same old things about middle class couples. Sort of like Friends, but with more soft porn and no wit. This film is no exception- it had situations so familiar I died from deja vu. People sat on couches, spinning out clichés about sex and relationships? Check. Monogamy versus cheating with some woman/man who would never look twice in reality at some other woman/man? Check. PORN The BADDIES!!!!111? Check. Some guy/girl in it who happens to be the only reason you're watching this rubbish? Check. The lesson seems to be- when it doubt, make a tired old sex "comedy" about people no one cares anything about, in order to make some statement that everybody has already heard three thousand times before. That'll get your film made. It'll even attract some sitcom nobody in a bad wig!


This series doesn't present the British view of the Revolutionary War, so much as an anti-American view of it. The underlying theme of the series is that a silent majority of colonists enjoyed British rule; that the founding fathers were manipulative schemers whose only goal was to draw Britain into a violent civil war; that the American supporters of the revolution and the militia were racist, violent louts, duped into the struggle. Clearly, the intent of the author, Richard Holmes, is for the viewer to extrapolate these characteristics, in a straight line, from the American population of 1775 to today.

For example, in the episode "The Shot Heard Around the World" Holmes dredges up an obscure print of the Boston Massacre, in which he claims the skin of Crispus Attucks, a black man and the first man killed in the revolution, was purposely "whited out". Holmes claims that portraying Attucks as a black man would have been bad propaganda for the revolutionary cause. Holmes never reveals how he knows this. And there's more. Holmes goes to some length to work in a single, unsubstantiated, atrocity: the desecration of the body of a British soldier. He compares the American militia to the Viet Cong and the mujahadeen -- without mentioning any differences in the goals of these groups. The list goes on.

Supposedly, this series was made in response to Mel Gibson's "The Patriot". It says a lot when an academic feels the need to respond to Mel Gibson on any topic. Instead of presenting the British view, it seems Holmes really wanted to give a sensationalistic, anti-American view, and, in the process, he's made himself the Roger Corman of historians -- strictly third-rate schlock.


My boyfriend and I decided to go see this movie after we heard on the radio that it was a good movie worth seeing, even up there with "Cars". Within the first ten minutes of the movie, I was horrified. For starters, the cows, which should be females, had male voices. Then I realized they really are supposed to be guys. I put the transvestite cows aside for a bit and tried to keep watching the movie with an open mind, but it was just so corny I couldn't help but shake my head. I probably checked my phone about ten times to see if it was almost over. The plot was decent, if not predictable, but it took way to long to reach its point. I was having trouble sitting through it, and I'm 19. The children in the theater were actually getting up and running up and down the aisles. I felt like joining them. But my biggest problem with the movie was that it was loaded with drinking references, not to mention that the cows/bulls actually hot wired and stole a car, then drank and drive, broke into a boy's house to push him out of bed (he deserved it though), then ran away from the cops, whom the writers of the movie made look like terrible people. This isn't the kind of thing I would want my kid to be exposed to. There's way too much of that in the real world, if I wanted my child to watch guys drink and drive and lead cops on a chase, I'd pop them in front of the 10 o'clock news. Children's movies are supposed to be an escape from reality, not an escape into ridiculousness. What happened to the good morals and happy endings that children's movies used to boast? That's why Disney's old movies, like Beauty and the Beast, Lady and the Tramp, The Little Mermaid, etc. are classics. If you want your kids to see a great cartoon with basically the same plot as "Barnyard", rent "The Lion King". You can get a great story without the awful drinking and driving and grand theft auto references. The writers of "Barnyard" were obviously trying to continue the great trend of making a children's movie that a parent could enjoy as well, but they did so in very bad taste. I would never take my kids to see this, and I suggest you save your money and watch something else.


Hello - I normally love movies. I'm 19, I have seen many and dislike only one or two. This one though, the second it finished, I had to pull my sister (who had wanted to see it) out by the arm and I burst into tears of laughter as soon as I got out because it was such a ridiculously awful movie.

Why it was awful: - all the cows had udders, especially bothersome were the MALE ones with udders - none of the characters were unique or engaging, except perhaps the main Coyote Dag - the idea of cows keeping watch against coyotes is just ridiculous - the 'funny' moments are repetitive and become simply a sequence to out-do the last one - the themes of working together, which should have been present at the end, were nonexistent. Instead, people get the impression: Well, I'll take this all upon myself, and in this case I was lucky that my friends decided to back me up without my knowledge - all the moments similar to the lion king (as mentioned below) were beyond corniness, even for a kid's movie

and...the worst of all... IT PARALLELS THE LION KING IN EVERY SINGLE WAY Responsible father figure who is killed by Coyotes (the Coyotes are essentially the Hyenas, with Dag, the lead Coyote, being the equivalent of Scar) The farm falls into chaos, Odis (the cow, though basically Simba) wants to play around, and is shocked that his dad died, believes it was his fault (even though in this movie, it WAS his fault), confronts the Coyotes and gets an ass whooping, after which Dag tells him to leave, and on the verge of leaving, Odis somehow decides to go and save some chickens and his friends back him up (by complete surprise of course, he leaves without knowing they will come help him).

Other things taken from Lion King: stars moving around as signs, father figures referring to stars/signs in a mystical loving way, the obviously circularness of how the father Ben found Odis and took care of him, and how at the end Odis' love interest gives birth and he has a similar experience. Birth at the end? GOOD GOD, what the hell... and even similar type music, which seems completely tacked on at the end because it is completely different from all the previous music.

Honestly, this is the first movie I have ever seen where I really WAS rooting for the bad guys - I never understood what other people were saying, until now.

BOTTOM LINE: Don't waste your time to go see this. Convince the kids not to see it, and re-watch the Lion King. Either that, or take them to see the Ant Bully, which was creative and artistic.


I cannot believe the number of people referring to the lead characters as 'boy cows'!! there is no such thing people!!!! There are cows and bulls and all males in the bovine species are bulls and do not have udders!!!! There was even an actual bull but it was like it was another type of animal completely! my god this is like drawing human ears on a cat, boobs on superman, or mickey mouse with blond shirley temple curls - even in animation it just doesn't work! giving human qualities to the animals is nothing new & to be expected, but changing their actual bodies into basically a transsexual figure is bizarre for a family cartoon - how many people- editors, writers, producers, animators saw this and didn't know any better or didn't say anything- it is completely astounding! i'm no snob & I luv animation- simpsons, beavis & butthead, south park, even ice age & all the other new ones out there - over the hedge was great- but this is nuts - totally nuts- i could not accept that that many people are that ignorant & i kept hoping for a reason for the udders in the film - an explanation - none came - and at the end when they hold up this little newborn calf & half its belly is udder & they pronounce 'its a boy' i nearly choked!!!! please, writer/creator let us in on the joke!


I took my 4 year old twins to see this movie today and I would NOT recommend it for children their age.

This movie had many fighting scenes throughout it, which I found too violent and my children found scary.

The subject matter was way over my kids heads and the death scene was too scary for a cartoon geared towards children.

I was disappointed because we were all looking forward to seeing this, but it just did not cut it. If you have children under 7 years old, I would not recommend this movie.

Also, the utter thing made me crazy during the entire movie.


Words cannot describe how horrible this movie is. Well, maybe they can. I'll take a stab at it: 1 - Pitiful. Hollywood makes more talking animals set in graphics. Apparently script and storyline aren't needed anymore.

2 - Violent. Kids movie but yet one of the characters is viciously attacked and killed.

3 - Blatantly stupid. The movie is actually depicting the farm animals as having human abilities. In Nemo, the fish could talk, but for the most part, they are still fish. We only hear the English as a translation. In Barnyard, the animals are actually speaking English that other people can understand.

4 - Unintelligent - No smart story line or even any smart humor. (Ok, the 13 year old dog on crutches was funny).

5 - Culturally insensitive - The "black" cow is actually played by a black actress. The pink cow is played by a white actress. The black cow was playing a stereotypical black person.

6 - Ignorant - No such thing as a male cow that I'm aware of. I believe we call them bulls? If we are going to expose our children to drek, it might as well have the simplest facts correct.

7 - Boring and Borish. My 4 year old had us leave after 45 minutes. He practically fell asleep.

I'm sure this movie will make millions, which is unfortunate, because it only proves to Hollywood producers that the American public at large is just filled with suckers waiting to pay 8 bucks just to get some peace and quiet from the kids for an hour or two. An unfortunate circumstance. Why should the producers spend real money when the returns will be the same either way.


Let's see... a couple dozen Gary Larson gags, as well as his illustration style, a possibly legally difficult wholesale appropriation of an Aardman character, a more than generous sprinkling of art direction from various Pixar films, positively Lion King-esquire villains living in what amounts to an elephant's graveyard IN THE MIDDLE OF FARM COUNTRY, oh, and a stinking' Riverdance joke ten years after any possible relevance. The kids (three and five) liked it, but boy, it was a haul for dad. Just another weak attempt from Nickelodean Films to hitch on to the animation explosion. I really, really wish they had spent a little more money on character design, on rendering, on a script, on a director.


It was so BORING! No plot whatsoever! Basically a watered-down version of the Lion King mixed in with Animal Farm. Again, no plot at all. Horrible! Worst hour and a half of my life!Oh my gosh! I had to walk out of the theatre for a few minutes just to get some relief! I maybe chuckled twice. All of the semi-funny parts are in the previews. I hate movies like that. Yeah, the movie pretty much sucked. I don't know how it got such good ratings and reviews. THERE IS NO PLOT OR STORYLINE!! If you do go see this movie, bring a pillow or a girlfriend/boyfriend to keep you occupied through out. Awful. I don't think I've ever gone to a movie and disliked it as much. It was a good thing that the tickets only cost five dollars because I would be mad if I'd have paid $7.50 to see this crap.


I can find no redeeming value to this movie. It appears to be loosely based on the Lion King school of thought. Father gets killed, son can't fill the shoes and tries to run away, etc, etc, etc. The only difference (other than being in a barnyard instead of a jungle) is that Barnyard tries to "liven things up" with club-type music. They go way over the top in trying to be cool. The problem is that it really isn't cool. It's like "that guy". Everybody knows at least one of "those guys" who are older and still hang out with the younger crowd in a futile attempt to cling onto their youth. They try to be cool to fit in but they really aren't. That's this movie.

But hey, if you have money to burn and you feel like paying someone to suck 90 minutes of you life away, by all means don't let me stop you.


I went to see this by myself first to make sure it was suitable for my little boy to see.

Thank goodness I did because I certainly would not allow any young child to see this. Why? The violence, death, the funeral. If you are not ready to explain these concepts to your kids then keep them away.

Why on earth are these topics covered in a kids movie - especially one that has a tag line of "The original party animals". Might as well put a gangland execution in a Hello Kitty cartoon.

As for laughs there were very few and far between. Speaking for myself there were none. The cows looked remarkably similar to the cows in the The Far Side comics. I guess there isn't anything original about this movie apart from the addition of ridiculous violence and antisocial activities for all the young kids to enjoy.


When my six-year-old fell asleep at the theater during this movie, that was all the confirmation I needed that this film is a stinker. It was boring. The scary parts were boring. The maudlin parts were boring. Even the funny parts -- with two minor exceptions -- were boring. And predictable. And did I mention predictable? Examples: 1) The gruff but loving Dad indulging his brat of a kid. 2) The gruff but loving Dad buying the farm (while singing a song?!). 3) The brat of a kid deciding to cut and run, but, thanks to his friends, sticking things out because they need him. 4) The brat of a kid winning against incredible odds. 5) And a sassy character voiced by an African-American actress. Gotta credit these filmmakers for that bit of originality and for perpetuating that stereotype. I did mention two funny bits. In both cases, contributed by minor characters. The mouse bouncing on the farmer's pulse was funny. The farm dog falling victim to his doggy weaknesses while vying for leadership was funny. But the rest? Painful. Someone tried to make a Hipness-Thru-Committee movie and make it even hipper by making it a computer-animated film, and this was the result. And why make the coyotes Batman-villain dumb by monologuing with their victims, rather than just eating them? Oh yeah. No blood needed in this film for kids, already concentrating on mock alcohol consumption, destructive behavior and potty humor. And the fuzzy thing-in-a-box? Just what exactly was it? A porcupine? Tasmanian Devil? What, besides a really stupid plot device to help Otis the Cow win the Mother of All Battles? Barnyard is a bomb. And I didn't even need to mention the udders.


This movie seemed like it was put together very quickly in both plot and graphics. My two daughters were ready to go 30 minutes before the end of the movie which rarely happens when we go to the theaters. This was a Nickelodeon Production and it would have been better if they had released it on the t.v. station. The animation itself in some parts was o.k. but the plot was horrible. A classic tale of a son trying to fulfill a fathers expectations is used in a lot of kids movies, but the animation or graphics need to be really good to keep a childs attention. This was not the case with this film. There were also awkward elements between the lead male character and the lead female character that the plot could have done without.


BARNYARD sucked! I saw this movie last week and it is horrible. What bull has udders? My 2 year old was asking me if all cows have udders and trying to explain to her that this is simply not true and seeing the movie only confused her more!

In addition, the violent theme scared my 2 year old. They made the coyotes ferocious looking and this has instilled a fear of coyotes into my daughter. I know coyotes for a fact are not ferocious and are natural predators. The mother and son who were sitting in front of us were shouting, "Kill him, Kill him, yea" in a particular scene in the movie where good vs evil per say

It is a Lion King rip off and they should stop using big name actors for a lame movie. Steve Oederek who has also done Thumb movies, such as Thumb Wars, Thumbelina and many others are so so Bad!

If a good Steve Oederek movie ever comes out in my lifetime, I will roll over naked and swallow my diarrhea and post it on Youtube.com ...Enough Said!


...I normally hate puns, but this seems the only appropriate summary for "Barnyard". I suspect I am not the first. And I'm sure many, MANY comments focus on the idiocy of bulls with udders. It certainly bothered me right off the bat. But there's much more wrong with this movie than a fundamental lack of knowledge about how mammals work.

Personally, if I was a parent, I would be irritated by the violent turn it takes near the end in the showdown with the coyotes. (Although for me, it at least injected a little action.) And from a conventional screen writing point of view, you might expect the coyotes to play a greater role in the conflict(Gee- you have a "widow" cow...maybe her "husband" was killed by coyotes? Nope...there's a much dumber explanation.) And what kind of a farm is this? Otis vows to protect all the animals from harm, but there certainly seems to be no threat from humans. They make reference to the farmer being vegan, but what is he raising pigs for? In all children's animal stories- Babe, Charlotte's Web, you name it...the reality of farm life is at least touched on. Perhaps our friendly farmer is running some sort of rescue shelter (there is some reference to this, but it's never explained.) But all the farmer gets in return is abuse from a horse in a scene that is supposed to be funny, but left me seriously wondering if he was going to wind up buried in a shallow grave behind the barn. And what the heck is the deal with "Wild Mike"? It was like the Gimp scene in Pulp Fiction without the ball-gag.

Add in some truly awful attempts at emotional scenes, a nearly complete lack of laughs, and THOSE UDDERS, and you've got the worst kids movie I've seen in ages. I generally only post to IMDb to highlight a film that's not so well known- not to slam the current #2 box-office hit. But this movie ANGERED me. It was taking up space in my local theater, space that could have been used to show something worthwhile. There's been plenty of good family entertainment this summer- in fact there were at least 2 more kids films playing at the same multiplex. But I'm not allowed to see something like "Little Miss Sunshine" so Viacom can cheat families out of an extra $30. At least I had a free pass.

I know that as a 35 year old with no children, this film was not designed for me. But there's just no excuse for such a lazy, dreadful children's film as "Barnyard" in the age of Pixar. I was bored by the "Ice Age" films, but they certainly didn't anger me like "Barnyard". "Shark Tale" was a weak attempt at street hipness, but it had quite a few laughs. For that matter, you could turn on Nickelodeon at any time of the day, and see something more entertaining and intelligent- which is why they should be ashamed for putting their name on this garbage.

I'm giving it a 2 out of 10, only because Pip The Mouse was sporadically amusing, and Maria Bamford had a few amusing lines as the farmers wife. Well, not THE farmer's wife. Some other farmer. They didn't really explain who she was. They didn't explain a lot of things. Especially not why Sam Elliot- the ultimate "man's man"- had an udder jiggling around down there. Creepy.


I took my family to see Barnyard this past weekend. We had so looked forward to it but had my kids not been there, my husband and I would have left. Coming from a farming community we found the fact that all of the male bovine in the film having udders drawn on them was a little disturbing. We felt like we were watching cross dressing cows or something. It was just odd to hear a male voice come from a female body. After checking some of the production notes on a different website, I felt like the animators might have slipped up on this fact. I know this is just an animated, humorous show but by putting female body parts on a male, I had to suspend my disbelief so much that I just couldn't enjoy the movie like I might have. I know udders can be found funny but they were definitely over used. None of the other animals in the movie seemed to have gender specific body parts drawn on them and I would have preferred the bulls in this show to at least have the correct ones if they had to be drawn on at all. The kids however still enjoyed the movie though we took the time afterward to make sure they knew the difference between bulls and cows.


Around 1980, the name Godfrey Ho was attached to a series of low-comedy action films starring an actor with the unlikely name Elton Chong". Although no masterworks of the genre, they remain surprisingly entertaining films for those with a high tolerance for silliness.

It is altogether unclear why Ho (or whomever) would want to make a film that would attack Jackie Chan's Drunken MAster, the film that legitimated the making of comedy-action films in Hong Kong. But that's what this is, a savage attack on the Chan film (the imitation Chan who stars in this movie learns to cause his opponents to laugh themselves to death - a pointless gimmick in any genre).

Along with all the flaws one expects from a Godfrey Ho film of this period - no continuity, no motivation, incomprehensible plot line, irrelevant and unbelievable characters - the film suffers from two unforgivable faults that effectively make it unwatchable: the fight scenes stink, and the comedy isn't funny.

Pointless.


"This film is great! I watched it with some friends and we thought it was proof that a film doesn't have to see commercial success to be a hit!" ...is what I would love to be able to say about this film. In the words of the film itself "you are very very bad!" I went to see an unlicensed acupuncturist once so generally agree with the moral of the film though.

i'd include a spoiler, but the lack of plot makes this very tricky. overall, a cinematic disaster.

quotes; 'you're not a leper at all!' 'you're beautiful, and i bet you're nice too' 'have you ever seen a naked man's body?' 'you couldn't break a piece of straw.'

cameos in dubbing; Micheal cane x3, harold bishop, steve erwine, benjamin netinyahoo, yoda.


this is a below average martial arts films which is worth watching for the comedy value due to the part where a pair of symbols are used as weapons. Thats it really there is much to say about this film it lacks in every department because the martial arts are not that great either and with all movies of this type the dubbing as BAD


I have to admit, that out of the many many thriller movies i have seen, this has to be one of the worst. I was shocked to discover that this piece of work had a 1.5 mil budget. When it started, i thought that the opening sequence was pretty good, fairly standard for this kind of film, but pretty good anyway. But as the film progressed i began to feel distinctly uncomfortable with the lack of pace that i was seeing, each sequence seemed to take hours. The reason for this could have been that by now the film had already bored me to tears, nothing was happening other than endless accusations peppered with confusing flashbacks and the occasional fit of bad temper. Well ... after wading through what felt like a lifetime of these scenes we finally reached the big finale...an all singing, all dancing demonstration of how lack of imagination can completely ruin what could have been a good film.

Overall i found this movie predictable and tedious and I would not recommend this film to anyone other than those people i personally dislike, but if you have a couple of hours to waste and you want to watch a thriller that is not even remotely scary, this is the movie for you.


This movie was so predictable and poorly acted. I really can't recommend it to anyone, not even for unintentional laughs. It is just plain bad. It is pure TV movie hell, the cast doesn't seem all that bad, but they act terribly. Just stay far away from this movie and rent something more intellectual, like porn.


Skeletons In The Closet takes the father-teenage son genre to new levels of low. This is a movie that serves no purpose. The plot is layed out in the first few minutes, there is no suspense, the characters are cliché and despite plot twists that try to confuse and obfuscate, everything plays out exactly as you think it will. Halfway through the movie I could no longer stand the snail pace and started fast forwarding. The movie ended exactly as I expected. Linda Hamilton is great as always and the other actors are above average considering there seems to be a complete lack of direction. If you really believe you need to see this uninspired lackluster wannabe whodunit, watch it on fast forward.


The video case for this film reads "a story of beauty, passion, and forbidden fruit". Are they talking about the same movie I just saw?! They can't be, as the film I just saw was beautiful, but there was no passion and as for the fruit, this is all hogwash meant to entice the potential viewer to see this movie. If only it did have some passion or some life to it, I would have greatly enjoyed this film. Instead, it was an agonizingly slow paced and not particularly interesting film that I would definitely not want to see again. It isn't that it's a bad film (after all it IS very beautifully filmed), but it is dull beyond belief. I kept waiting for something exciting or interesting to happen, but then the movie just ended. There was no great sense of excitement, mystery or anything--just a rather unexciting story about a young girl who becomes a servant and spends the next 10 years of her life working as a maid.


I checked out this video expecting to like it. Wanting to like it. I like foreign films, I like beautiful cinematography, I know the critics liked this film (including my favorite, Roger Ebert), and I don't mind "slow" films.

Well, it's beautiful. That's about the best I can say for it. The plot is very thin, the shots are very long, the glances are very meaningful, the actors are very sincere, and it seems like a very long movie. I fell asleep half way though it, woke up, rewound the tape, tried again. It was a trial, but I made it to the end. I didn't like it any better for that.


I guess when people say this is beautifully filmed they are talking about the close ups of frogs and the cooking of meals. It certainly doesn't refer to the set which seems to be composed of about 3 rooms with no outside shots at all. Also all of it is filmed too close up.

I got sick of the little boy who keeps farting at Miu or pouring hot wax over ants...also do Vietnamese spend all their time sitting on their haunches? Kind of gross looking at least the way this movie depicts it--one close up of it would have been plenty not a dozen or more.

Then finally comes part two... a chick flick for Vietnamese girls with the perfect handsome rich man who spends all day playing the piano (He is cultured). The pretty maid steals him like the forbidden green mango fruit. Deep.

Except for a few nice close ups this film is a dud. It is sort of a soap opera with out dialog. It is cloyed. How is it beautiful?? The set looks completely fake.

No don't make the mistake I did and rent it because someone recommended it. I was expecting beautiful shots of the coastal mountains of Vietnam or something when I heard it was a visual gem.

I wanted to like this movie. I like foreign movies even prefer them. But this movie is dumb and dull. It will leave you irritated that something like this won a bunch of prizes.


This movie could have been summed up in about 10 minutes. I don't know what everyone else was smoking calling this a beatiful film. I feel that a couple hours of my life were stolen from me and I want them back. I would put this in the category of a Battlefield Earth. Yes folks it is that bad. You would do just as well to watch a two minute clip of this movie over and over it would have the same effect. DO NOT WASTE YOUR TIME!!!


This episode has just aired in the UK.

What a disappointment. The heavy-handed touches of humour were ill-judged, childish and detracted from what could have been a pretty good storyline. I cannot believe that Jerry Bruckheimer allowed this episode to take place. I have seen every previous episode of this show, and even the episode where Jack played his own older self was way ahead of this episode. The lesbian kiss was pathetic sensationalism.

There was also no continuity from the previous episode. There was nothing in the storyline investigating Martin's dangerous behaviour or possible drug addiction. There was similarly nothing explicitly written about Jack's burgeoning relationship with Ann. Usually Without A Trace is pretty good at this sort of continuity.

The next episode needs to be a considerable improvement.


i've watched this movie (movie?) casually and i've never stop watching because is so ridiculous any dog can play this act and will be better then the actors (actors?)of this bad remake of the Fatal Attraction there is no directing, no playing, only an unlucky copy of the Adrian Lyne movie if you have doubt to suicide watch this and you can choose...for "yes"

i can't imagine people that went to cinema to see this rubbish; maybe someone that had an empty afternoon and choose the first cinema near house to stay 2 hours with some others to forget problems but it's hard to go back home relaxed


It's hard to comment on this movie. It's one of the few movies Dimension actually has not shelved (it's hard to come up with a reason why) and it was rushed into a an unimpressive 500 theaters it's opening day. Maybe Dimension was afraid of how people would respond to a swamp creature using his tow truck to pull a house apart piece by piece.

Ray Sawyer is just a tow truck driver, until he rescues a Voodoo priestess from a bad car accident, and in return, he gets attacked by a bag full of snakes and drowns. At the morgue, Ray comes back to life, and stalks a group of teenagers who witnessed the awful crash occur.

What brings this movie down is it's paper thin characters. I didn't care for one moment about any of them. Also, the dialog was less than ho-hum. Also, it was very predictable. Characters did the typical stupid horror movie character things, like check creaky noises, call out people's names, and trip on a rock while being chased. I also could immediately pick out who the final girl would be. And why did the camera have those quick white flashes whenever somebody died or whenever the killer was shown?

What's good? Well, there is an impressive suspense scene where the killer walks underneath swamp waters to get to his victims and a tense sequence where the final girl must camouflage herself with bunch of other dead bodies while the killer looks on.

But other than that, It's another August/September disappointment. I was looking forward to it, but I did not get what was expected.


I gotta admit it, I love horror films...especially 80s slasher films. Hell, I even love cheese like Sleepaway Camp and Night of the Demons. But, I didn't think much of this movie. The death scenes weren't very well done, the CGI was terrible, and the acting was ho-hum. Worst of all was the story which didn't make sense at all. I'd say save your money but chances are, if you want to see this movie...you're going to anyway. I didn't hate it...it's just not very good. Overall, it's just another bland, lifeless horror film that lacks life (it's no surprise that this one was on the shelf at Dimension for over a year after it was completed).


Overall it was a watchable movie. I didn't pause it or stop it to come back to it--a clear sign of a boring movie--so it passed the first test. Best of all, it got into the story fast, no boring unneeded back story for the characters.

It will never go down as a great movie. Nor as a great B movie. I would recommend this movie to slasher/horror fans who don't mind straight to video releases.

Unlike some movies of it's ilk, there is no nudity, only moderate language and rather subdued gore. There is violence though. The deaths were rather dry and unimaginative sadly. The computer special effects were actually pretty good. The way the 'creature' wielded his chains in some scenes reminded me of 'Spawn' and the 'Ghost Rider' comic books.

A little pet peeve...It's set in Lousinia, but no one seems to talk with any accent. I had to watch the credits to even realize it was filmed in Lousinia.

Like most low budget movies, there are small goofs in the filming. Lack of time and money would be the main factors for the goofs. For example in one scene it went from mid afternoon to pitch black in seconds...during a short car ride. The other instance was the stunt double for the 'creature' didn't have on the 'creature' makeup when falling out of the tow truck...it also looks like he's wearing a shirt in the scene.

In summary, I didn't hate this movie but I also didn't love it. I probably will never rent it again, but if a buddy owned it, I may watch it again in a few years.


I wouldn't exactly call this a good movie, in fact it might even be a bad one.

BUT there are at least 2 good reasons to keep watching this movie, those are the performances from AGNES BRUCKNER (Eden) and JONATHAN JACKSON (Eric) whom both deliver solid performances.

They are much better then the rest of the cast whom are pretty bad, especially MEAGAN GOODE (Cousin Skeeter).

BIJOU PHILIPS was excellent in the "Suburban kids goes to the hood"-drama HAVOC, but here she's far from good on the edge to being annoying.

THE STORY is decent enough although nothing special, BUT it would have been much better since it takes place in LOUSIANNA that any of the kids actually incorporated a down south-accent, but they don't (!).

Especially in a movie where "the monster" is actually bounded so deeply into the Lousianna folk-lore, with voodoo and such it's just plain stupidity not to include that accent into the characters.

The only one who does this is rapper METHOD MAN, he plays Deputy Turner and puts down a pretty good accent in his few scenes, and I mean if a rapper is able to do this then why shouldn't the "proffesional" actors be able to do the same? Mister Tical aka Meth is highly enjoyable in his very VERY small role, Who know the Ticallion Stallion would ever be a cop? Even if only on the big screen.

Anyways besides that it's a pretty stupid but fairly enjoyable Slasher-movie, but if BRUCKNER and JACKSON was as bad as the rest of the young cast this could have been really bad, thankfully they are good as usual.

4.5 out of 10, decent BUT there are hundreds of better slasher-movies out-there.


I see this movie as a poor tribute to the old slasher movies. Because it really doesn't hold a candle to the 70's and 80's gold-era of horror, this is of course where personal taste comes in.

This movie just falls into the category of "New generation of slashers" in my book, the cast is the typical ones 18-24 years and potential models. I'm personally quite tired of that image in horror movies, the old movies at least had some variation in people. One or more fat people, and dorks in general. Just plain looking persons, of course having a couple of good lookers is fine they always been there. But when the entire cast is just a bunch of nice racks and butts it's getting silly. I mean, OK yeah i like to watch HOT chicks. But not in a horror that is supposed to reflect some ordinary people getting hunted down by for example a knife-wielding maniac... You expect the people being hunted to look something like any random person you see on the street. I think. There are of course a few movies with just good lookers that is perfectly alright, but they aren't many. "Wrong turn" is one example of the better ones.

Next point is the killing scenes that slashers should be all about. In this poor movie, all you get to see is 2-3 frames of sudden high pitched sound/scream and music in crescendo. And that's it. The little you do get to see isn't very graphical at all, not for people who have seen some horrors during the years. The old-school slashers compared to this had much more and better death, blood and gore. Not to mention the killers in those movies, who surpassed the one you'll get to see here.

As for true horror fans it is more fun and exciting to watch horrors with new approaches because of the originalities that pops up, the killer in this one doesn't add anything new and fresh to the genre in my opinion. I have to agree with what someone previously stated as well, the CGI is something i hate to watch. Personally i preffere the makeups in that sense I'm conservative, (unless the CGI is really well done). But most importantly is to set a good setting of mood which allows you to "get into the movie", a good background story is one very good thing. Also revealing and explaining too much of everything in a movie to the viewers takes away all sense of mystic that adds very much of the mood, and doesn't give you much to think about. Just as an example: keeping the killers background a complete mystery for the viewer is a good move in many cases. I mean if everything about the story or the people in it has to be explained or shown in detail, then it's not much content left over for the viewer at all to ponder about... That's like watching a porno movie and hope for a great story in the meantime.

Why the old-school slashers still works, at least for some people. Is because they are established cult movies from the era when they were a new thing, making new ones of that sort today is admittedly hard. The exception might be for people who are newer to that sort of horrors of course. I have noticed that many people does like this sort of horror movies, so there are of course not "A right taste" for horror movies.

But for people out there that might share my opinion; here you have a frame of reference what to expect of this flick.


I never intended to see Venom, but I caught it on cable. It does have good elements. The Louisiana swamp atmosphere for one, something we will unfortunately not see so much of in movies because of Hurricane Katrina. It is based on an interesting concept, a regular man imbued with the spirits of evil. His confrontation with his son could have been interesting, as could much of the movie. But as tends to happen in Hollywood, an interesting idea goes down a familiar direction:

Kill off all the characters save the good girl, starting with the Black guys. I'm a fan of Agnes Bruckner, but the other characters, the villain's afore-mentioned son, CeCe who must become a voodoo priestess, are more interesting. And for the love of God, just once I would like to see the virgin get killed. We all like the easy girl, why can't she live? In this case it was Bijou Phillips, and we love her.

The ending made no sense considering what had been established about the villain's invincibility. All the carnage and atmosphere, and it leads to nothing.


Here he is. A new horror icon for the new millennium. Better than Freddy. More dangerous than Jason Vorhees. More evil than Michael Myers. Hard to believe, I know. But his time is here....

Ray The Prick.

Yep, the antagonist, Ray is a complete Prick. This is partly because of the naughty things he does. Also because he has a scar (oh, scary) on his face. But mainly because Ray The Prick has been milked.

Yep, Ray doesn't channel evil. He doesn't even become cursed, not even by a voodoo spell. Nope, Ray The Prick has been milked. As DeNiro once said, "You can milk anything with nipples". And Ray has been milked. Of evil.

How do you milk evil you ask? Snake nipples, I reply. Snake nipples.

Why Ray you ask? Because he's a Prick, I reply. Capital P.

Watch out for the New Line Pictures extravaganza entitled "Freddy Vs. Ray The Prick".

Thought your new horror saviour was Jeeper The Creeper? Well not any more, cause Ray The Prick is here. And I'm frightened.

Pity about the atmosphere-less, PG-13, unoriginal workmanlike quality of the film though, because Ray's a star.


Yes, said title line does actually appear in this movie. Why? I'm not sure. When the line was actually being said, didn't somebody in the crew filming, at some point, laugh? I would have liked to see the outtakes from this movie, mostly because I think they would be more entertaining than the movie itself.

Helmed by director Jim Gillespie, ("I Know What You Did Last Summer,") comes a teen slasher movie that seems to assume we haven't ever seen a teen slasher movie before. Of course, he's not to be given all the blame. There are also three writers responsible, and this is somehow based on a video game that's still in production. The title of said game is "Backwater," but upon looking for information on it I came up with absolutely nothing.

And so we begin the movie... I would like to say before I continue that I wasn't expecting this to win an Oscar. When I am in the right mindset, I enjoy a fun horror movie to pass the time. I think there exists an opportunity for an effective, original, and smart slasher movie. "Venom" is not this movie.

There is almost no character development at all. That's fine. You don't expect a whole lot. However, instead of a well-knit cast of a few, this movie decides to introduce us to the following many horror movie cliché characters...

1. The Final Girl: She has just broken up for her boyfriend. This means that at some point in the movie when they are in peril, they will decide to get back together again. Which more than likely means he will die and she will be the last remaining survivor of the movie. "Eden" is played by Agnes Bruckner, without much enthusiasm, I might add.

2. The Boyfriend: He's just around to co-exist with The Final Girl until his demise. Sure, he can save her, but he's doomed and we know it. "Eric" is played by Jonathan Jackson.

3. The Bimbos: Usually horror movies only feel the need for one of these, but here we have two. They shoplift, they steal, they might show their breasts, (not in this case,) or they might possibly be alcoholics. A staple of the genre. They also wander around in dimly lit areas all on their lonesome, usually saying things like, "Hello? Is there anybody there?" "Tammy" and "Patty," suitably named, are played by Bijou Phillips and Davetta Sherwood.

4. The Jackass: Sure, he looks pretty, but he's the idiot in the movie that's inserted purely to be an idiot. He says stupid things, does stupid things, has obviously never seen a horror movie, and is one of enjoyable kills you watch this kind of thing for. "Sean" is played by D.J. Cotrona.

5. The Girlfriend: She loves the Jackass even though pretty much nobody else does, and she's usually the one left alive for a while so she can scream and cry until she starts tripping and gets left behind. "Rachel" is played by Laura Ramsey.

6. The Creepy Janitor: In this case, The Creepy Gas Station Attendant. Enough said. "Ray" is played by Rick Cramer.

I could continue, but I think you get the picture. The remaining characters aren't so much common as they are equally killable. There's "The Gay Guy," (Pawel Szajda as "Ricky,") who definitely got robbed as far as screen time is concerned, and "The One Who Knows What's Going On." Of course none of that matters, because at first everyone always thinks that one's crazy. "Cece" is played by Meagan Good.

There are a couple other characters, namely a deputy played by Method Man, but he and others are killed off pretty quickly and get even less character development than the following clichés.

So, you're probably thinking, "why does this movie require such a deep analysis? It's just a summer horror flick, for cryin' out loud!" Based on that question, does it deliver the goods? Yes, and no. The acting isn't particularly convincing, even given the amount of talent involved. Bijou Phillips was hailed for her performance in Larry Clark's Bully, and Agnes Bruckner has been an up-and-coming talent for a while now.

So, what about the gore? There's some. That's really about it. A lot of the juiciest bits are cut-aways. Namely a scene involving somebody's face and a sandblaster used to remove paint from cars.

To the filmmaker's credit, there are a couple interesting scenes. I liked the bit where part of a house was literally ripped off so that the unstoppable villain could get to the characters.

If this had all been centered around a smarter screenplay in which the characters didn't make the same dumb mistakes literally hundreds of horror movie characters had made before them, it might have made for a more enjoyable experience. All of the most interesting characters are immediately killed off in the first third of the movie and then it just becomes a not-particularly-interesting countdown until we know it's just The Creepy Janitor and The Final Girl.

I suppose I must be a little jaded, but as a horror film fan, I'm left wondering why I should have bothered when I could easily have written a better screenplay myself. I won't even mention the numerous instances of terrible CGI.


In this movie everything possible was wrong and I don't know why I bothered watching it until the end. It would have been more fun watching paint dry. For crying out loud I even liked D-Tox and it was much better than this. Here is the basic plot for you: A redneck gets bitten by snakes that hold the evil of 13 murderers and becomes an undead killing machine murdering teenagers that have zero personality. During the movie I lost hope when it didn't scare me at all, when the kills were bad and there was BAD CGI blood and CGI snakes. It got worse with the cardboard thin characters killing their friend by holding her from her legs and not letting go so she got impaled by a tree and when the bad guy moved under water like the shark in Jaws. I'm still upset why I even bothered with this. I guess because I'm a horror movie fan.


this movie wasted my time. i saw only part of it and i was crying about the wasted time that i could of spent doing something productive and useful towards this earth. for everyone that has watched this movie more than once, i am blaming them for global warming as the the amount of black balloons that got entered into the earth from this piece of crap were not needed and if they came from a different movie, i would have forgiven them. robin Williams lowered his standards to actually participate for more than 10 seconds in this film and Tim Robbins, how he went from this film to the shawhsank redemption, i have no idea. please do not watch this movie for the safety of the earth. stop releasing black balloons into the earth from a film that they should have never funded or released. please burn all copies before anyone else has to watch this crap.


Here's yet another movie with dysfunctional lead characters who are totally amoral and, yet, we're supposed to root for them? Not me. No character in this film was worth a damn.

Robin Williams plays car salesman "Joey O'Brien." The man has no class, a loser in every moral sense and a guy who thinks he can talk his way out of anything. Knowing Williams' ability to talk, he was good for this role. The women in his life are driving him loony, too. Some of them aren't much better than him.

Tim Robbins plays a similar low-life who starts the take over the film when he, fully loaded with explosives, crashes into a car dealership showroom and holds people, including his wife, hostage. Robbins, as in normal for him, plays a disturbed and ridiculous character. I guess these nut-case roles come easily to these two actors. Gee, I wonder why.

There is so much yelling and screaming in this the movie that it will give you a headache. Combine those two screamers with the nasal voice of Fran Drescher and you really have an annoying over-the-top cast. This is like listening to chalk on a blackboard for an hour-and- a-half. This is comedy? No, this is lame.

In fact, for a Robin Williams film to only have a dozen reviews posted here tells you something. It's a far cry from his best movie.


Jealous husband holds car dealership hostage while Williams burdens the viewer with his worn out Mork shtick at every turn. Yawn.

Pay channel grist. An uncommonly bad script coupled with a less than convincing Robin Williams as a slick talking, philandering Queens car salesman caught up in a hostage workplace crisis. The laughs aren't there, the message(s) or morals are just all wrong, and the film cant ever decide on whether its a comedy or drama. Pretty good cast all acting pretty badly. When a movie ages so badly so quickly, you got yourself a stinker. Not much else to be said other than maybe, avoid at all costs. Textbook mediocre movies like this are actually more tedious, and less enjoyable than the over the top bombs.


And one only, in my opinion.

That reason is Margaret Leighton. She is a wonderful actress, on-stage as well as on the screen. We have few chances to see her, though. I think that's especially true in the United States.

Here she plays a sympathetic role. Not only that but she is also very pretty and meant to be something of a bombshell.

Walter Pigeon does not hold up the tradition of Drummond performers. He is always reliable but he's not much fun. He's not a rascal or a knave. Consequently, this seemed to me a talky endeavor with little action or suspense. But check it out for Leighton.


There really is very little positive that can be said about this film. Walter Pidgeon is a truly unconvincing hero and even moreso when he tries to go "undercover" as a villain who, we're meant to believe, drinks too much and knocks his wife about a bit. Margaret Leighton, as the wife/undercover sergeant is a little more convincing but it's still difficult to believe that any hood worth their salt would not have seen through their charade in less than a minute. The plot, about a bullion heist, is silly, and the action drags rather than grips. David Tomlinson, who plays Algy in the same way that David Tomlinson seems to play all his roles, is the only glimmer of light in a wholly dull affair.


Visitors is a hard, hard movie to enjoy. It's so slow and leaden in it's pacing that at times I was drifting off during the film. This was about 11AM on a hot, sunny day, I might add, not midnight on a cold winter evening, so you get an idea of just how slow this movie is.

Strange thing is, it's not long. At 100 minutes it's only ten minutes longer than the average straight to video, and it's only fifteen minutes longer than the superior Darkwolf that I'd quite happily watched the day before. It just drags an awful lot, enough for you to lose interest.

When it's not mistaking S-L-O-O-W development for atmosphere, Visitors is good enough at action to almost make it excusable how slowly things happen. While the flashbacks are both cheap and annoying as a way to round out Radha Mitchell's boats-woman, the hauntings/aliens/whatever are actually quite creepy and effective, especially when her suicidal mother turns up and starts groaning in the night. Full marks for not splurging make-up all over the shop too. The single person boat is a creepy place, and at times the movie uses the full power of the location and the deserted sea to scare the hell out of you.

Still though, I find it hard to recommend Visitors. I came out of it not only feeling like I'd just watched a 4 hour film, not a 100 minute one, but also feeling like I'd been cheated somehow, as while offering many explanations as to the hauntings (Mind games? Real ghosts? Space aliens?) Visitors doesn't pick one for definite. All that watching Radha Mitchell talk to her cat and Dominic Purcell smoulder for no obvious reason about some unexplained horrific event in the past, for nothing?. Say what you like about Shyamalan, but at least he tells you what happened, however crazy/stupid you might think it. If you don't watch a lot of these movies, your fresh perspective will probably improve matters somewhat, but I found this slow, boring and highly derivative. If you want to scare yourself silly there are much better places to do it, if you want a clever thriller there are many that are smarter.


i didn't like this movie.to me,it didn't make much sense.it was hard to figure out what was really happening.i also didn't think it was scary.i did however,think it was silly,even absurd,but not in a good way.Radha Mitchell is the main character in the movie,which cam out in 2003.She was also,coincidently in 2006's "Silent Hill"which i hated.it too i found confusing and pointless."Visitors" isn't as bad,but i think it is certainly below average.there is just nothing special about it.the script is just too muddled and there are things in the movie which don't need to be there,in my opinion.I think Radha Mitchell is probably a good actress,if she has more to work with.my vote for "Visitors" is 4/10


Idea is great, spoiled big time by the judges.

Why make fun of people? if what the inventors say is true, and as most of them say, they spent their life saving on the invention, the minimum is to reject the idea without making fun out of the people.

also, it shows when they want to accept an idea by the crier that they added to the judges.

The only one i respect out of the judges is the one who always sits on the right of the table, he is a respectable person

of course the English snob who claims to be a business man, wearing a suite doesn't make you one pal

last but not least, the big guy who sits between the English and the crier. wake up man, the is no job called and inventor for you to call yourself one. an inventor is an attribute not a job man.

i think they wanted to add someone like Simon from the American idol, they thought it worked there, it can work here as well. the context is different and the idea is totally different.

it is a good idea and they could have done a good show out of it if they just change the judges and remove their act and attitude.

just stop making fun of the people.


The concept is excellent. The execution typifies the overall quality of the ABC network.

Apart from Peter Jones it appears that the rest of the panel consist of marketing execs. rather than real entrepreneurs.

When I realised that Peter Jones was getting together with Simon Cowell my initial thoughts were wow he's gonna take America by the balls. But it appears that ABC have come along and destroyed the concept.

I was an absolute addict of the Dragons Den in the U.K. and was interested to see that Peter Jones had manipulated the concept that originated in Japan and developed his own show for the States. The result is neither inspiring nor informative.

If you lack drama in your life you have a choice now Jerry Springer or the American Inventor To sum it up: a struggling musician selling out to a media mogul.

Idea: get me! And I'll produce a show worthy of the title


I can't believe I'm wasting my time with a comment - but this movie is weirdly bad. If 20 different directors were brought in to film different parts of the movie without having any idea of the storyline being filmed by the other directors, this is pretty much the result I would expect.

I also think some of the scenes were spliced out of order - things don't always seem to progress in order. The movie acts like we're already supposed to know about half the characters.

And Steve Guttenberg tries to do manic, a-la-Robin Williams comedy in this movie. Ewww. And the whole premise of putting an ex-con in charge of a bunch of kids just doesn't seem realistic in this day and age.


This movie was a waste of the celluloid it was printed on. It is a disastrous scene, much like a particularly gruesome train wreck.

Watching this is like trying to explain the meaning of life. The main plot point is that the character played by Steve Guttenberg is a party animal who's not supposed to gamble, because that would violate his parole. The kids he befriends refuse to play with him as coach for a while, because he gambles. BUT... a few minutes later, after they've won the championship, a large sum of money saves their shelter. And where did they get the money? GAMBLING!!! Add this to the creepy scenes at the funeral home (why exactly are there BEDROOMS in a funeral home?) and the useless peripheral character


I would be one of the few people who owns a copy of this classic. But i dont only own 1, i actually own 2. Its THAT good.

Well, when i say good, i mean bad. But i will try to do a thorough review. I even watched 'born a ninja' which one of the other reviewers here mentioned, to compare it to this. And born a ninja is actually worse, but not quite as funny.

And is this ever funny. EVERYTHING about this movie is poor. EVERYTHING. The plot is absolutely stuffed (note the 'you'll need to keep me alive if you want to know where to find your wife'). EVERY action sequence is stuffed too. Our hero danton is more than a hero; he can stab people with twigs, take 3 bullets in the heart at 50 cm away without even bleeding, and tie a rope up to a tree which, when an enemy steps on it, ties a knot around the enemies leg, picks him up, and throws him 50 metres into a bunch of spikes.

The acting is so bad it is impossible to comment on it, but it should have you rolling, especially dantons 'jump out of the ground and growl at the bad guy'. Oh yes, and the bad guys: somehow, it seems they resurrect themselves 5 times each in the movie. Perhaps it's just that there weren't enough actors, but in a movie of this calibre? i doubt that.

The 'plot' is about how danton was a soldier in the vietnam war, and now his colonel is hunting real people for training for his mercenaries. The colonel just happens to pick up danton, then danton fights back. This is just the excuse for a rambo clone, with most of the movie being danton slaughtering soldiers. And i really cant explain the plot any more cos there is nothing else to the movie. It still rocks though.

What else could be wrong you ask? Dont get me started. Hand grenades which actually go off at the actors' feet because the explosion is the size of a match.Scenes where there are 5 people chasing danton, then the camera cuts away and back and there are 7. The way that every time danton loads the grenade launcher he is against the same background even though he is in completely diffrent locations. And the worst part is when danton pushes the plastic boulders onto the enemies, and one enemy is completely untouched by the boulders, so he doesn't know what to do so he half heartedly dies without even being touched. It's ridiculous!!!

But funny. Very, VERY funny. This is one of the few movies i can thoroughly recommend to everybody, cos if you dont find it funny, you are 1 in a million. And for the rest of us it's magic.


I remember seeing this film when i was about 10, one of my friends had it. At the time it was just a film as i was about 10ish and just thought of it as another action film.

When i look back now as a complete film buff this is quite a shockingly bad film. Whoever produced this film i am sure had a short Hollywood career. Although the lead actor seems to have done a few films according to IMDb, albeit i haven't seen any and don't really remember him too much.

Anyway, just to say that this film is really bad, in all ways it could be. I would love to see it again though :oD


Was unlucky enough to see this while travelling by coach across Africa. It was far and away the worst film I have ever come across. Deserves to be the #1 all-time worst ;-) No acting, no plot, very little speaking. Lots of ape-like grunting though, in this hopelessly unlikely film. An unwitting self-satire - you'll either laugh at it or cry.


I've enjoyed watching Lost from the beginning and endured a few bad actors in poorly written episodes because when Lost is good, it's really good! But this episode that features Mr Echos demise had so many drawn out scenes with lingering closeups of bad acting that I found myself tapping the fast forward button. This episode stood out so far as by far the worst. In fact, the variation in quality of Lost has been so inconsistent, I find myself often wondering how many writers they are using.

I will continue to watch but hope things get better and hope I stop secretly wishing for the sub-par actors in the series to die off.


I have been watching "LOST" with my family since the first episode, it used to be great. The last season it was very disappointing, it seems as if they (writers)don't know what to do with the show, so, they keep trying to make it up for it by stretching one story line in a whole episode. The present season, which by the way I decided to keep watching only to see Rodrigo Santoro, and also with a tiny little hope that things would get better; has been one disappointment after another; my husband and son even stopped watching. First of all, he (Santoro) only appears for 30 seconds in each episode. But the real problem is with the story line, THERE IS NOTHING REALLY HAPPENING, each episode could be shown in 15 minutes. We watch each episode waiting for something that never happens; I am not asking that every secret be revealed at once, but how about some variation in the story lines? In the first and second seasons, we had different story lines, we saw the characters history, a little action, a little romance, now is like one big event that takes the whole episode to unveil. It is almost tiring to watch it, when it finishes you have a feeling that you lost your time. Now, it is important to note that the actors still great.I can't believe they killed Mr. Eko(Adelawale...)he was great, Jack(Mathew Fox)is still incredible, the perfect hero, so kind, magnanimous, brave. Sawyer(Josh Holloway), the "bad boy" is kind of mellowing because of Kate(Evangeline Lylli), but that's cool. I miss Sayid(Naveen Andrews), Sun and Jin(Yoon-jin Kim & Daniel Dae Kim), they are all an important part of the plot (or should be), but we barely see them. I hope Paulo(Rodrigo Santoro) will have a big part on the show; if not, why did you make such a big deal of him joining the show (Access Hollywood, etc)? Sorry if I've been rumbling for too long, but I feel cheated by this show. When I started watching it was great, I got used to it, and now it is very disappointing to see the way it is going. I'll be here, hoping for the improvements!!! Katia


Maybe it is unfair for me to review this movie because I walked out well before the end. That's odd, because I usually like Shakespeare on the screen and I enjoyed Midsummers Night's Dream once, many years ago, when I saw it on the stage.

 I think that two things did me in: that squeaky twerp with the Shakespearian name, Calista Flockhart, and Michelle Feiffer sitting in a giant clamshell. Well, I suppose you could say it supposed to be a comedy -- but when the scenery is funny and the actors aren't, I'd say we have a bad movie on our hands....


I don't really know why but I watched this with quite a sense of anticipation. Unfortunatly it was misplaced. Firstly this is not horror, it doesn't scare and (unless it was even worse than I gave it credit for - which is possible) doesn't try to. It's a trashy comedy and the fact I smiled once means I gave it a 2 not a 1. This film ripps of Gremlins in a truly special way, I can't claim to have ever seen a film which devotes its self more. Very, Very bad - avoid.


Lame is really the best way to describe this movie. It has a real poor script, uninteresting dialog and characters and it's lacking in basically everything else as well.

There are too many characters and problem is that you don't care about any of them. What the movie is lacking is one good and clear main character. Instead now the movie has a bit of everything, it has a bit of an hero, it has a bit of a love interest and it has a bit of villain. I wish it only had a bit less Ghoulies though, fore they are just mostly very annoying in this movie.

Ghoulies are supposed to be devilish creatures, who murder for pleasure. In this movie however all they want to do is drink beer and watch naked college girls. Besides, someone had the 'brilliant' idea to let the Ghoulies be able to talk this time. This works out really poorly and annoying. The Ghoulie-puppets had been definitely upgraded for this movie and they are more detailed looking and are able to do more, however at the same time they are way more fake looking than the ones from the previous Ghoulies movies.

It's obvious that the aim for this movie was more comedy than horror this time. The movie is like a lame '80's high-school comedy (even though this movie got released in 1991). It's humor is really the worst and most lame thing about the entire movie. It's so incredibly annoying and simply not funny at all.

The story is not going anywhere with its story and the movie is just basically one big mess, that never seems to end. The Ghoulies plot line seems basically to have nothing to do at all with the other plot lines of the movie, involving the human characters. The movie is not at all about the Ghoulies terrorizing a college, with the humans trying to hunt them down and stop their rampage. No big surprise that this is Brent Olson's only written movie as of yet. He simply has no talent for it and I think that he has discovered this as well and has gone back to college himself instead.

Even when compared to the previous Ghoulies movies; this movie is just simply terrible!

2/10


This rubber monsters failed trying to be cool,scary or even comedians,looks like a wannabe movie of Porkys or Animals House but the sequences and history is not always clear also can't catch your attention all the movie looks cheap and with an amazing bad taste,the only thing that's makes you laugh is the awful rubber monsters who must have a cost of one dollar each,because the work or them never looks realistic,the movements and expressions make looks the Muppets as a Pixar 3D movie when you compare with this. Hope Marie Carlton is the only thing that makes supportable this awful movie,and when she dies in the movie,this turns even worst than before.A movie who only must be seen in fast forward.


Would someone explain to me when the Ghoulies learned to speak? This was a horrible film, I loved "Ghoulies" and "Ghoulies 2", but what's this? Unless you want to kill yourself, please stay away from "Ghoulies 3". On a scale of 1 to 10, "Ghoulies 3" gets a 1!!


I've had never been disappointed by a Kurosawa film, but this is probably the first. "Doppelganger" is the worst I've seen from this director.

Tartan Films is advertising this as "The most frightening film yet from Kiyoshi Kurosawa". What? The most frightening film from Kurosawa is definitely "Kairo". And if you think this is horror, your in for a surprise. This can't be classified as horror, or thriller. This is a drama, and a pretty bad one at that. A lot of scenes that were meant to be shocking have turned out being funny, and a lot of the plot is really confusing. And since it's Kurosawa, the pacing is slow. But it's so slow that you'll lose interest forty minutes in, and feel like doing something else. The thing that annoyed me the most was the use of CGI. Now CGI, if used well, can be really cool. But if executed with little care... It can be a disaster. I think that describes one scene here that has a very minimal use of CGI.

The only positive thing I can give "Dopppelganger" is that it has really good acting. Koji Yakusho gives a great performance, along with the rest of the cast. But that's pretty much it...

Please, do yourself a favor, and go watch "Kairo" or "Ko-Rei" if you want to be scared. This is a bad, bad attempt at a smart drama. Which it is intelligent, but... Well, there's a lot missing.

3/10 for the good acting.


This is a painfully slow story about the last days of 1999 when a strange disease breaks out and... I stopped caring. This is suppose to be about two people who live over or under each other in an apartment complex. There's a leak and a plumber put a hole in the man's floor so you can see into the woman's below apartment. Also since there is a crisis going on much of the dialog is actually news reports...

Sounds promising?

Not really.

I became distracted and started doing other things which is deadly in a subtitled film. Basically I started not watching, which made events seem even more surreal when I did look up.

It may work for you, it didn't for me.


Voor een verloren soldaat , for a lost soldier, is a sad example of how not to translate to film a touching, complex psychological study, of that most magical time in a man's life, when he is still a child, but starting to become a man. The novel records the real life experiences of Rudy van Dantzig, as told thru the boy Jeroen, during the waning days of WWII at age 11 as he deals with his incipient sexuality, and his deep fears of abandonment as he has been sent to the province of Friesland, north of Holland by his parents because of the lack of food in Amsterdam and has not heard from them in many months as the postal service has broken down.. The arrival of the liberating soldiers in the film, is presented in a painfully corny way, with the soldiers providing entertainment vaudeville style. Then one soldier, Walt, romances Jeroen and the pair is presented as two frolicking males.who consummate their love in a sexual experience. This taken in stride by the 11 yo Jeroen. The reality was somewhat different: Jeroen describes his encounters with Walt, 6 in all, in detail but in oblique language. But there is no misunderstanding their nature. Walt is aroused to an intense passion by Jeroen, during which he handles him roughly, so that in their final meeting, Jeroen is bruised and suffering a painful wound on the shoulder where Walt has bitten him. During this encounter, Walt rapes Jeroen, twice. Jeroen could have easily avoided Walt after their 2nd encounter, when Walt first assaults him as Walt is clearly anxious to keep his abuse of the boy from the other soldiers. Why Jeroen keeps seeking Walt out is a mystery of the human heart and not explainable, by me anyway. What the film leaves out is the aftermath: the nightmares, the dejection, the frantic search throughout Amsterdam on the chance of finding Walt, for Jeroen loved Walt, and nothing could shake that.


Read the book, forget the movie!


To truly appreciate this film you had to be there (acting?) or have been a crew member.

Yes, I am "Selena", and at the ripe old age of 42, have serious doubts about what we were doing/did.

It all started out to be like a "John Waters" type thing, friends acting badly in bad films. Somewhere along the line,the fun discontinued, people who were supposed to be friends didn't speak anymore, and BAD became worse.

I regret the bad image I might have projected.(Try to fit in size one gold spandex pants,)

Other than that, the film SUCKS so badly, I would not even make my mama watch it.

To my director, cast and crew I say,

"Why can't we just all get along??

It's been OVER TWENTY YEARS, PEOPLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Three young movie theater employees are given the task of re-opening a long closed old-time theater at which many years before a shocking series of grisly murders took place. It seems many more murders have occurred since then but all of this remains unknown to these three young upstart employees hoping to finally make it big on their own. As they approach the grand re-opening night, things keep getting stranger and more unsettling with items suddenly starting to move around by themselves without any seen aid and a terrifying old man seemingly haunting the premises.

Oh, this is truly horrible. In fact, if it wasn't for Mary Woronov's secretary character being such a fiercely independent outspoken empowered young woman who steals practically every scene in which she appears and the incredibly hot chick who played the unbelievably sleazy yet totally sexy Selina, this would be a total loss. The only other good thing I have to say about this film is some of the movie theater murders are done in truly inventive, albeit not overly gory (a preference for me but not necessarily for others), fashion. The rest just wallows in constant sleaze (so extreme the rare few may actually find humor in it) and runs through the predictable slasher kills annoying characters off one after the other routine.


I agree that Mary Woronov (Murdoch's secretary) is one of the only good things about this film. She is my favorite actress ever, every role she plays is always done so well. Her character is sly, sarcastic, clever, light hearted, funny and cunning. She really pulls this role off well and you get a good feel for what her character is all about.

The rest of the movie is pretty bad. The music is the most entertaining thing left. One of the characters has this really strange circular radio that she brings with her while she wears her tight zebra striped tank top.

One thing that was a little intriguing about the story was the idea that someone hires these three college-aged kids to spruce up an old abandoned theater. He gives them the keys and says - go at it. That would be really fun and I wish someone would give me that chance! Imagine going into an old abandoned theater with two other people and you get to decide how to decorate it, and fix it up. You have total control over the whole building. That would be so fun! Unfortunately, the characters do not think of this as an exciting adventure, they think of it as a big chore. They walk around with long faces and fight with each other the whole time. It's kind of a bummer. But it's fun to think about the possibilities that these people aren't even excited about.

The movie does a pretty good job at making you feel helpless or a little spooked out by the theater itself. However, the acting (besides Woronov.. and possibly Murdoch, the boss - just because makes a really good money hungry fake smiley business man who never has any luck) is really horrible and you just end up feeling unsatisfied. Plus, the random slapstick is a little tacky and kind of ruins the reality that the film tries to create.

Watch this if you dig Mary Woronov, funky 80's Casio keyboard style electronic beats and if you think having a giant spooky abandoned theater to yourself is at all intriguing.


The most hardcore bad film buff will be surprised by the overall ineptness of this grade-z "film". Mary Woronov, a clever actress best known for her roles as Mary Bland in Eating Raoul and Miss Togar in Rock 'N' Roll High School, is by far the best thing about this tripe. This film is almost too bad even for MST3K - honestly!


This movie was so dumb and slow was it ever slow. The only good part of the film was the girl in the tight shinny gold pants. There was no gore whatsover and what is a 80's horror movie without a little gore. Plus the killer wasn't at all scary nor were the murders. But if you like to watch the world's worst horror movie then this is for you. Don't waste your time like I did watching this.


A movie theater with a bad history of past gruesome murders reopens. Of course, the bloody killings start anew. Written, directed, shot, scored and edited with an appalling lack of flair and finesse by the singularly talentless Rick Sloane (who later disgraced celluloid some more with the absolutely atrocious "Hobgoblins"), this horrendously ham-fisted attempt at a slasher spoof strikes out something rotten in every conceivable way: the excruciatingly lethargic pacing, the painfully static, grainy cinematography (there's a stinky surplus of drab master shots featured throughout), an annoyingly droning and redundant hum'n'shiver synthesizer score, the flat (non)direction, a tediously talky and uneventful script, the groan-inducing sophomoric sense of lowbrow humor, the bloodless murder set pieces, a pitifully unscary killer (he's just some wrinkled-up old guy in pasty make-up), the uniformly obnoxious and unappealing characters, a dissatisfyingly abrupt ending, and lifeless performances from a noticeably uninspired cast all ensure that watching this schlocky swill is about as fun and rewarding as eating rancid raw eels drenched with sour vinegar. This crud totally lacks the necessary crude charm and sleazy vigor required to be enjoyable junk. Instead it's just a bland, plodding and meandering stiff that never catches fire or becomes even remotely amusing in a so-shoddy-it's-smoking sort of way. Only a smidgen of nudity and the delightful presence of the always dependable Mary Woronov as a snarky, sardonic secretary provide a little relief from the overall crumminess of this lousy loser.


The Most Fertile Man in Ireland revolves around Eamon Manley who is 24 year old and still happens to be a virgin. He lives with his mother in Belfast. He is also a very shy guy towards women. Everything has changes for Eamon when he is seduced by a woman(as far as I can remember a neighbour). It is not because he looses his virginity but he discovers that he has a super power. Despite having protection, this neighbour becomes pregnant. He is told by the doctor that he has very high sperm count. His mother brilliantly comes up with an idea which makes us see ginger headed babies all around in the end of the film. He starts helping out women in both side of Belfast to conceive babies. First voluntarily then with the help of his colleague runs a business out of it. The Most Fertile Man in Ireland has its funny moments but needed to come up with better jokes and with a better script. I couldn't help thinking that it gave me the impression of a TV sitcom rather than a movie. Kris Marshall is a different name on the silver screen but does not shine as star. It's more like the guy you saw in such and such movie. Like him being in Love Actually(I think he was very funny in that one)..Well, it was okay to watch but couldn't help dozing off from time to time. ** out of *****


Heaven, Mary and all the Saints above! A young man has got super sperm, it's miracle bejesus, call the Pope, all you ladies out their desperate to get preggers, line up out side his door and drop your marks and sparks finest! Risible retro ealing comedy type comedy, trying to bring you a bit of the auld Irish charm. Has an effect like placing two fingers down your own throat, voamitus maximus! One out of ten!


Roll up! Roll up! It's Big Gay Bruce and his Big Gay Death Cannon! Plausible plot? Unnecessary! Decent acting? Unnecessary! Respect shown to its mighty progenitor? Unnecessary! Yes it's another offensively stuffed turkey in the Butch Bruce canon.

I mean where do you start with this film? Okay, let's begin with the woeful misapprehension people might have that this was, in some way, related to either the book or the original film, The Day of the Jackal. It's not. In fact it's so different (and so bad) that Fredrick Forsyth asked to have his name taken off it. Now I'm not necessarily a stuffy Brit who can't hack Hollywood remaking British films. Well, okay, maybe I am a bit like that, but fortunately it's a redundant point in this case. This film is so different to the original that the name and the odd reference are the only things that survive.

Now let's move to the premise. Cheesy Russian gangster gets killed in a Moscow police raid (somehow involving the FBI although no one bothers to explain why). In revenge, brother of gangster decides to wreak vengeance by killing the wife of the US President (although again no one bothers to explain why this is a good move  although to be fair it was pre-9-11, so he wasn't to know it would have resulted in the US airforce carpet bombing Eastern Europe). Gangster hires "nasty" killer (Willis). Police hire "cuddly" killer (Gere), "cuddly" killer tracks "nasty" killer. Police fanny around and periodically get killed. "Cuddly" killer kills "nasty" killer. First lady is saved and we all realise that the IRA are just this bunch of real sweet guys y'know, who just happen to want to kill innocent people. Nice.

Let's put to one side the distasteful Hollywood habit of playing in the troubles of Northern Ireland like it was a sandpit in a theme park (I deal with this point more extensively on the message boards). If Hollywood directors want to cast the Belfast butchers as hookers with hearts of gold, that's up to them. I, of course, reserve the right to despise them for it. It's a free country.

More egregious, however, is the fact that the film manages to patronise and insult the Irish while trying to support them. That's not politically distasteful, it's far worse: it's incompetent. It's no wonder, for instance, that Gere still looks so damn good, given that he slept through the entire six months it took to make this piece of cra*p. The fact that Gere's accent is not only Southern Irish, but an appalling parody of Southern Irish shows that the filmmakers weren't looking much beyond America to make money from this film. Then there is that lovely scene at the end where Sidney Poitier (a complete waste of space in this film) says he's off for a coffee, offers to get our "cuddly" IRA man one, then casually says "Ah, but then you guys drink Guinness don't you". Yeah that's right Sidney; the Irish live on Guinness and potatoes.

While we're on the subject of Poitier: why? In the original film the detective is the tracker. In Jackal, Gere is the tracker. So what does Poitier do? Well, he just hangs around and looks like a tw*at of course. He's got absolutely nothing to do apart from call in the marines at the end, and he only does this because the nice IRA man tells him to.

While we're on the subject of Gere: why? I suppose it's only a matter of time before Hollywood remakes Gandhi with Vin Diesel playing ex-Mujahideen Commando Mahatma Gandhi beheading his way through 1940s and 50s India (he is, after all, a bit dark of hue and therefore very likely to be a Muslim fundamentalist). Let's not forget that Gere's character is a killer and therefore a nasty piece of work. And if he's not, why does he know The Jackal? If he's not, why does he know all his moves? And if he is, why is he such a limp biscuit and such a "loveable" person?

All this goes to show that the makers of this film couldn't be bothered to (a) think about the plot (b) have the characters making decisions that were in keeping with their character(c) avoid cheesy stereotypes like having the big boss bad guy kill his own friend  I honestly thought this had turned into a Bond movie (d) give the "central" characters something to do (e) credit the audience with a modicum of intelligence.

This film is an insult to the British and Irish killed at the hands of terrorists, it's an insult to the Irish people, it's an insult to not great, but pretty good film it rips off, and an insult to the intelligence. But most of all  and most unforgivable  it is an insult to my a*rse for having to sit through the over two hours of run time it took to finish. Honestly, you'd think with no plot, no characters and no dialogue, it would be over in no time. But they didn't even have the decency to quit early.


Amidst all the many problems that make this a dire piece of celluloid is the stupidest plot device in recent cinema history. Richard Gere determines who the Jackal's real target is through some form of revelation. He does not work anything out, it just comes to him. When in doubt "He's going after the First Lady!". This film blows chunks.


Laughably awful. One might think that all the big-name actors involved in this movie would at least make it believable, but they do not--this one is a stinker.

Characters either sprint around without having a good reason to know where they are going, or they stand around making constipated faces when they should be running for their lives.

Check your higher brain functions at the door if you intend to try watching this movie. Or, get a bunch of your most clever friends together and give this one the "Mystery Science Theater 3000" treatment. That's what I was doing through the second half of this turkey.

And PLEASE don't confuse this with the excellent movie "The Day of the Jackal," a far-superior thriller from 30 years ago.


Spoilers!! Bruce Willis, the part-time Comic and funny guy plays a Hispanic assassin nicknamed after an African scavenger prairie dog? I guess all the good Hispanic nicknames like Sicatriz (Scar), Scorpion, Viper, Cobra, Snake, Tarantula, Latigo (whip), Navaja (blade), etc. were not available?? And why would some South American assassin be acquainted with a terrorist from the Irish Republican Army?? Last time I checked, the IRA is not looking to open any branch headquarters in South America. And why would some prison-tough, battle-weary Irish terrorist look like a middle-aged Richard Gere? I thought maybe this movie was going to be a spoof of "The Crying Game" when Gere's character was introduced as the person who was going to hunt down "The Jackal." What bad casting! And why would the FBI be hiring depraved terrorists in order to track down assassins?? It seems like a terrorist goes for mass destruction, and an assassin usually hits one target in a non-spectacular manner. But Gere is the only person who has ever seen Willis alive, according to the FBI. I thought this movie was supposed to be a remake of the very great film "Day of The Jackal" but this movie is just a dumber version of "Assassins" with Stallone and Banderas. Both of these movies are really dumb, and part of the dumb-ness is the fact that as the audience we are forced to watch Bruce Willis go through his routines and we should say "Wow! isn't he smart!" THE PROFESSIONAL with Jean Reno was a much better movie about assassins. "The Jackal" is just a movie about two fat middle-aged millionaire actors who could get paid for standing around looking pretty and pretending to be smart! "The Jackal" is so poor, that I expected to see Sly Stallone, Dennis Rodman, Mickey Rourke, and Jean Clod Van Dumme making cameo appearances as "other" hitmen or FBI. Needless to say, "The Jackal" has eluded the FBI for twenty-five years, but as soon as Richard Gere gets on the job, it is only a few days before "The Jackal" is kaput! I guess the positive message of this movie is, "Thanks to terrorists, our streets are safe from assassins." Overall, the "Jackal" has no redeeming qualities.


This may well be the worst remake Hollywood has ever produced, and that's saying something. I'll take it further than that and say this movie is so stunningly, deliriously bad that IT MUST BE SEEN. I don't know if I'm even capable of tackling all the things wrong with it--like the fact that the casting director appears to have pulled names out of a hat, or the mind-blower of Richard Gere's character being allowed to walk away scot-free at the end (I'm sure the people saying, "It's just fiction, who cares" would have no problem if it was a former Al-Qaeda operative who just wants to return to his home country)--so I'll just devote my review to the utter hilarity, which is mainly the scene where Bruce Willis is testing out his gun.

In the original version, you'll recall, the Jackal practices his kill on a pumpkin. The pumpkin explodes on impact, an effect known as "understatement." In THIS version, Willis sets up a pumpkin target, but he doesn't use a sniper rifle--he uses a gigantic remote-controlled cannon which costs tens of thousands of dollars and can only be stored in the back of a huge conspicuous minivan (this man likes a challenge). He reveals the cannon by pulling away a tarp, at which point Jack Black, who is there to observe, jumps around and says, "That ROCKS! This thing ROCKS!" about 18 times (I guess Willis didn't have to disassemble it first, he just lifted it, tarp and all, out of the back of the van, despite it probably weighing several tons). The scene then turns into an Austin Powers movie as Willis misses the pumpkin and takes out a tree, then has Black run through the mud with his pants falling down, finally blowing off Black's entire arm. The pumpkin falls to the ground, unharmed.

If I can recommend this movie for ONE non-ironic reason, it's for the Diane Venora character as a tough Russian major who becomes romantically linked to Gere despite having a facial disfigurement--a bold move for a Hollywood feature. By mid- movie I was really liking this character, so it was a shame when she had to be killed. I would have liked to see a movie about her. Other than that, this pile of crap is only useful as an objective intelligence test. 3/10.


It is hard to screw up this story. GREAT book / GOOD Film version from Fred Zinneman, yet this film is AWFUL! First the casting was terrible. Richard Gere should of played the Jackal himself as Edward Fox was a similar type of cypher and they didn't need to mess with the original script by adding so much worthless (expensive) fluff. This film reminded me of so many Bruce Willis films, as you see huge expense with NOTHING cinematic to show for it. (It is his "Conspiracy Theory") It takes some real doing to make a film this bad from such a fine original script. EVERY person from Michael Caton Jones down should be banned from making films for 10 years; such is the insult this film is to real filmmakers. Were Hollywood to go on trial for having no idea what they were doing, this film would be Exhibit A. Shame on you ALL!


The 1973 "Day of the Jackal", directed by Fred Zinnemann from the Frederick Forsyth novel, while not a masterpiece in the general scheme of things, was nevertheless quite an above-average thriller, written and carried out with considerable panache, wit, and style. It remains a pleasure to rent and watch now and then.

In adapting that for the 1997 "The Jackal", it seems that at every turn the writers and director made the worst possible choice, making it all quite leaden, overdone, unsuspenseful, unsurprising, unsexy, and unthrilling. If we put together a catalog of all the specifics that went into this movie, big and small, I could give you a mini-essay for each topic on how the 1997 adaptation ****ed up.

Item: the weapon.

In the original, there is considerable intrigue over how the assassin is going to smuggle it onto the scene, how he intends to disguise it, and why it needs custom work from his underground craftsmen. In the remake, they apparently thought that today's action-flick-raised audiences wouldn't tolerate a small rifle whose point is precision and would demand the lugubrious off-the-[black-market-]shelf machine gun, which needs a minivan to transport it, and whose point is to shout Macho. The whole involved and interesting business about disguising its components, has been reduced to showing us (repeatedly, like this is a difficult point to follow?) that the joystick for his absurdly high-tech remote-control system has been in his pocket as a pen.

Item: the conspirators and motive.

Without resorting to dry lecture, the original still manages to give us a good understanding of the historical situation of the "pieds-noirs" [ "blackfeet"], the French-Algerian irredentists who could not accept that the century was moving away from colonialism, and formed the view that De Gaulle had betrayed them. This gives the whole plot some historical weight. The remake seems to leave it as a gangland-shootout revenge story, minimally spicing it up by making them Russian gangsters. Note please that I'm not opposed to updating: they could have done this intelligently and come up with something more current but non-trivial. Certainly Russia and the rest of ex-USSR have been through huge changes of late, and an updated story could have been situated there in a way that would make us feel that it *matters*.

Item: the relationship of the assassin on the run and the police hunting him down; and the complex steering of the viewer's sympathies from the bad guy to the good guy.

Above I hesitated somewhat at calling the original a masterpiece overall; but in this aspect it really was one. We follow along with the assassin for much of the first portions of the film, and having seen his cleverness and resourcefulness we begin to admire him, and not want to see his plan thwarted or see him caught -- at least, not too soon! Then we meet the policeman who gets pushed into heading up the investigation / protection efforts, and bit-by-bit we take to him, and see he is not the sad-sack his domestic troubles may have suggested. By the time it matters, we have been won over to his side.

In the remake, perhaps Poitier could have handled that sort of development , but Gere sure can't. And the absurd "48 Hours"-derived gimmick of the con brought out to help the police should have been left in those comedies where it came from.

The remake has the assassin and the assassin-hunter *talk* about how they 're like players above a chessboard, communicating indirectly via their moves and only able to *infer* what the other is like. That was achieved superbly in the original. But in the remake in fact they're brought into face-to-face confrontation way too soon, so they can grimace at each other, bloody the place up, and go through some fairly standard chase scenes.

Item: photography, and "scenery".

The remake does have some nice images, particularly in snowy Finland in the opening section. But the Washington, D.C Metro cannot really compete with the streets of Paris for interesting perspectives and bystander faces.