Nothing could be more appealing than the idea of a good love story featuring Kristin Scott Thomas and Harrison Ford. The cool, refined English beauty and the warm-blooded American male -- what could possibly be more lovely? Well, this is not that movie. Right away they ruin it by casting Kristin Scott Thomas as an American Congresswoman. That's like casting Hugh Grant as Babe Ruth. Or Colin Firth as Al Capone. Kristin Scott Thomas is exactly the sort of woman you don't picture shaking hands with greasy ex-junkies in filthy slums, or squeezing into smelly crowds and kissing babies. She would have been far better cast as the English born widow of an aristocratic Senator, the kind who belongs to the hunt club and goes to flower shows but has no idea how the other half lives.

Then there's Harrison Ford as a regular guy cop. Certainly he's tough enough for the role. But the idea that he's going to romance this stunning high society beauty is a bit hard to swallow. Why couldn't he have been, say, a tough but wealthy reform politician with blue-collar roots who inherits Kristin's late husband's Senate seat? The two of them are initially quite cool to each other, but for duty's sake Kristin is cordial to him, and he in return starts showing her some of the rawer side of life -- things her husband sheltered her from. Her political awakening coincides with the jolting passion of a newer, more blue collar, lover -- one who appreciates her polish and refinement far more than her aristocratic husband. Now that's a love story! Instead of that, though, you get a blank, meaningless "thriller" where the action drags and nothing happens. Well, there is one ghetto style "drive by" scene where Harrison almost gets killed, but it's so abrupt and unexplained it's really more like welcome comic relief.

The sky is always gray in this movie, and our refined, lovely Kristin always looks a little chilled. When she's supposed to be dreaming of passion, she looks more like she's dreaming of a wool blanket and a cup of tea! She also looks a bit sleepy most of the time, like she'd really rather be napping in the bed than screwing Harrison Ford.

All things considered, I'd say you can't blame her.


It wasn't until I saw Sidney Pollack in the picture that I ever connected him to this film. This is his worst possible movie. Absolute dreck. The dialog is wooden and unbelievable, the plot is unbelievable.

Kristen Scott Thomas is wasted in this movie. There is nothing about her character that makes you even want to believe in this story.

Harrison Ford is like on Valium. There is no life in his eyes.

I blame Sidney Pollack for the failure of this movie. The script is awful, and he is too smart to not see that. So it smacks of some kind of payoff, whether of a studio obligation or something else, but this is just BLOODY ROTTEN!


So much great chemistry between Kristen Scott-Thomas and Harrison Ford, but every time the story about their relationship began to gather momentum the script cut away and dealt with some irrelevant sub-plot that did nothing to advance the story. Indeed, the subplots had nothing to do with the story at all. They were like commercial breaks in which you watched a trailer for another movie.

The writers (or someone who controlled the writers) obviously didn't trust themselves to write compellingly about relationships and the interior lives of their characters. They seemed to be uncomfortable unless they threw in some gun battles and bar fights. Or perhaps they didn't trust the audience to pay attention to a story about a man and a woman trying to understand their relationship under difficult circumstances. After all, we all know how boring "Casablanca" was.

Perhaps if the relationship between Kay and Dutch had been developed more and had been allowed to play out, the writers would have know how to end the story. This film is a disappointment for not doing more with its wonderful actors, who gave good performances but could have done more with a better script.


Why is it that such "romantic" movies that never actually go anywhere, always start (and probably end) with crappy jazz? It's not clever and it makes it look like a bloody tv-movie. This film was sappy, slow paced, boring, unoriginal, wooden and did I say boring?

Harrison Ford was probably trying to be mysterious and crude, but he was just a crawling, mumbling cop that seemed to walk into the congress-woman's home like everything was fine, when he behaved like a pervert - staring at Thomas with a pervy glare, hardly ever bothering to speak.

And why the hell do they always get British actors to put on crappy accents - they're casted because they're famous, and everybody knows they're british precisely because they're famous!


Motivations of the characters was completely unbelievable. Many times throughout the movie you find yourself thinking that the characters' actions were totally illogical, making it impossible to identify with the characters. Possibly, the writing / direction were completely out of sync making the movie painful to sit through. I wanted my money back from the video store...


Being a Harrison Ford fan I am probably being kind. It was predictable, sappy...my husband made a lot of gagging sounds while we were watching it. What a disappointing movie. Our local newspaper (San Jose Mercury News) actually gave this 4 stars out of 4 stars!!! Hard to believe that the reviewer saw the same movie we did.


I clerk in a video store, so I try to see the movies we're about to put out each week. I don't have a problem with this; in fact, I sort of feel it's a privilege. Not so with this film . . . After an hour and a half of our hero whining and growling his way through scene after scene, I was truly wondering if they planned to get to the point. I felt like I should be getting paid for watching this at home, in my free time. And if I'd known there was another hour to be endured, I might have given up right then. I didn't care about the characters, the filming was unremarkable, and Ford made kissing look like a chore. Even the score was incongruous and jarring. What a waste.


I really like Harrison Ford so I eagerly rented this movie only to be disappointed minute after minute. Mr. Ford seemed to be walking through very warm water looking for a place to urinate. His co-star was very good and had the better lines. The story intrigued me but the mistake - BIG MISTAKE - as everyone is identified via driver's license or passport before they board any american commercial aircraft left numerous plot questions in my mind.

I could have cared less about these people. In fact, the sub-plot of the Internal Affairs investigation was more interesting than the two lovers killed while flying first class to Miami.

I am disappointed in the director, Sydney Pollack who gave us the classic Tootsie and other films. This one is a waste of time and energy.


Two things -- too long and totally lacked credibility. This movie didn't make any sense and was excrutiating to sit through. I am usually pretty patient, but man... It just doesn't keep your attention at all! I think I am being nice here even! You keep thinking it's almost over only to find out it's still got another half hour! Good actors.


Harrison Ford plays Sergeant Dutch Van Den Broeck of the District of Columbia Police Department. He tries to get the bad guys, but doesn't do a very good job. When we meet up with him he's trying to catch a corrupt undercover officer. Kristin Scott Thomas plays a New Hampshire Senator, Kay Chandler, trying to get reelected. She's running against a candidate who has plenty of money. The last thing she needs is the death of her husband. She's a politician- she can't be bogged down by feelings.

This story moves slowly and painfully. I was looking at my watch every five minutes wondering when it would be over! The story gets lost in details the director, Sydney Pollack, didn't need to put in. We don't want to know about Dutch's police investigations. They throw in some insight to politicians and the spin control' they do for campaigns. After seeing the movie I'm still wondering why they got involved romantically. Doesn't anybody mourn anymore? Don't you need more than two weeks to even consider going horizontal' with someone else?

It was good to see actress, comedian, Chicago native and Second City Alumni Bonnie Hunt. Her role isn't necessarily comic relief, but she was the only one I wanted to see more of. Do yourself a favor, wait for it on video if you want to see it at all.


To quote one critic's review of the movie, "it started off slow and stopped." The plot was believeable enough (although some of the characters' actions seemed very, very RANDOM), the script was fairly well written (in that the dialogue did not seem forced), but everything went way too slowly. There were too many pauses between lines, and the way the lines were delivered was not all that great. This movie had potential, but blew it like a teenager turning to drugs. My advice? Wait for it to come on TV before you see it.


It was tough watching Harrison Ford obsessing over nothing. Kristin Scott-Thomas should have slapped this guy and told him to take a hike.

Save your money. Don't even bother with a rental fee, unless you need a good nap.


I went to see Random Hearts with 3 friends, and at first, I thought maybe it was just me who wasn't enjoying the movie. After all, I didn't like As Good As it Gets and that movie won all sorts of awards. Well, it wasn't just me...none of my friends liked it either. It was unbelievable slow, much like getting teeth pulled. The only action that is in the movie is what is in previews. We didn't walk out of the theatre because we all assumed something more would happen. We weren't as smart as the 7 or 8 people who did walk out. I have never walked out on a movie in my life, but I definitely should have. This is all tough for me to write, considering I am relatively easy to please when it comes to movies. It takes a lot for me to think a movie is awesome, but not much for me to just like it. This movie didn't even come close in the like category. Not only was the movie about 2 hours too long, but it was like two separate trite stories in one, but they weren't smoothly sewn together. Plus, the "soundtrack" if you could even call it that was so annoying. Like Seinfeld has the same riff that is played over and over again (difference being that i like Seinfeld)..this movie had this jazz riff that it kept playing, which sounded highly inappropriate at times, especially when people were dealing with the deaths of the plane crash. Hard to explain what I mean, but trust me it was awful. I cannot say enough to make people not waste their money. After I left the theatre, I honestly wanted to write to the movie company and demand my $7 back..sheeesh, I could have gone bowling or something for that money.


Back in the dark days of 1990, the hoped-for Heir to the Spielberg Throne (after the failure of supposed whiz-kid Phil Joanou) was mistakenly believed to be pretentious Spielberg wannabe David Mickey Evans. Evans managed to fleece the studios for over a million dollars, suckering baby-boomer executives into believing his screenplay -- a combination of nostalgic, 1960s references and a disturbing drama about child abuse -- somehow equaled good storytelling, and a decent film.

As Rod Stewart once sang, "look how wrong you can be."

But the novice's artsy-fartsy, "E.T."-inspired script convinced enough people he was the next Chosen One -- the New Spielberg -- and so a deal was struck to not only buy the script for more money than 99 percent of the world's population will ever see in their lifetime, but for Evans to direct the film as well -- even though he'd had never directed anything in his life.

Hey, how hard can it be to be another film-making genius, after all?

Two weeks into the shoot, Columbia found out. His dailies were called "totally unusable" by the studio -- or at least those level-headed enough to not to have fallen under the E.N.C. (Emperor's New Clothes) spell. All his footage was scrapped and recycled into guitar pics.

So what's a studio to do after sinking 10 or 20 million dollars into something they still believed represented the Resurrection of Steven Spielberg? Hire Spielberg himself to save the day? Columbia probably tried that.

Enter old pro Richard Donner. Hey, he may not be a cinematic genius, but he gets the job done. "Superman" wasn't too bad, after all -- and the first "Lethal Weapon" was pretty good.

So Donner steps in and grabs the directorial reins. Fortunately he manages to convince Columbia that the worst of the film's insipid fantasy sequences -- which would have played out like a ten year-old's acid trip -- have to go. Unfortunately, he leaves in the Crying Buffalo (ooh, how poetic) and the ridiculous, pseudo-Spielberg fantasy ending, complete with Clueless Mom perfectly content for the rest of her life to get postcards from her missing son as he circles the globe in his red wagon. Right.

But Donner did manage to get a decent performance out of Elijah Wood. And Lorraine Bracco as the Idiot Mom wasn't bad either. Maybe Donner should be reevaluated. Maybe he's not such a phony Hollywood hack as everyone has always believed.

The only reason I'm giving this over-baked misfire a 2 rating is that someone was smart enough to cast the great John Heard (but in the wrong part, of course). The kids do okay... though Tom Hanks' horrible, overly-explanatory narration nearly destroys every scene it intrudes upon.

One might think that after the David Mickey Evanses and Phil Joanous and Troy Duffys of the world, the studios might finally wise up. One might hope that these hype-driven film-making debacles might prevent the Emperor's New Clothes syndrome from ever rearing its ugly head again.

Doubtful!


Even though this was a well-told story, I found it too unpleasant. The main subject is child abuse, which is never fun to see - a sordid topic. Add to that a lot of profanity by the drunker-abuser husband and a GD by a little kid, no less - and this movie turned me off as far as ever seeing it again.

Also portrayed in here were punks picking on the two little boys, another unpleasant viewing experience. The realism of the story takes a swan dive when one of the boys flies away on a home-made airplane! Give me a break!

The only positive, enjoyable part of this movie is seeing the nice, loving and touching relationship between the two young brothers, played by Elijah Wood and Joseph Mazello. The latter became a familiar face in the next couple of years with big roles in Jurassic Park, Shadlowlands and The River Wild. Wood, of course, didn't hit it big until a decade later but, he made it very big In The Lord Of The Rings trilogy. Those two kids, and narration by an unbilled Tom Hanks, are the only facets of this film I liked.


This was one of the most mixed up films I have ever seen. Everything in the movie seemed to be attached to justify some other element that had been glued on. There is even a talking buffalo that wants his wet nose rubbed to make the magic happen. Even the brutal father seems to be stuck in just to give the kids an excuse to fly away in a wagon. It was laughable, but in an uncomfortable way because of the serious subjects that seemed to be used just to set up the plot.


This movie was horrible. If it had never been made the world would be a better place. Come on, a flying wagon? What were they thinking? This was a sub-par movie with a horrible hook, and I would like a written apology from the studio that produced this, along with some cookies to help repay me for the time I wasted on this crap fest that I can never get back. If you payed to see this movie, I am truly sorry because I watched it on TV on a Sunday afternoon when I had nothing better to do and it pretty much ruined my whole week. A flying freaking WAGON?!?! And that's supposed to make up for having a horrible mother who cares more about her own screwed up needs than her children? No wonder they don't have enough sense to tell someone he is beating them, their mother teaches them nothing but that what she wants comes before everything else. Absolutely horrible.


If it wasn't for the very attractive Jennifer Jostyn in the lead role, I would have turned "Milo" off after the first 30 minutes. However, as easy on the eyes as she is, she's not enough to save this film, not by a long shot.

Milo starts off with a group of young girls accompanying an "assumed young boy" in a yellow slicker to a house in the woods where he shows them embryos in jars. Apparently, the deal was that if he showed them the jars, ol' Milo gets to conduct a gynecologist exam on each in return. One of the group volunteers to be Milo's "first patient" and he leads her behind closed doors. Moments later blood flows from under the door and we are whisked into present day. Enter the lovely Jostyn who plays one of the girls all grown up in present day. A substitute teacher with shallow confidence whose closest friend appears to be a goldfish, she receives an invitation to return home for a friend's wedding. Yep! You guessed it. Return to Miloville. Milo, who allegedly drowned years ago, seems to be having a dilemma staying dead and begins terrorizing and murdering the girls he failed to "examine" all those years ago.

Milo, the character, reminded me of one of the mutants from Cronenberg's "The Brood." He could have been scary, but just how scary can a villain be who wears a yellow raincoat? The plot confuses even itself and the conclusion left me wanting my 90 minutes back. I'm sending Milo, an inept slasher film, to stand in the corner!


"Milo" is yet another answer to a question nobody ever asked.Do we really need more slashers?I for one think we already have more than enough.I guess the professional tall guys overcharged so in this one we deal with a murderous kid that's also a zombie or a ghost when he feels like it.A long time ago,he drowned but that didn't bother him and he still kills people("Friday the 13th",what's that?).One day,his survivors have a big reunion and as a surprise twist,Milo comes to pay them a visit.Through some really bad shots that show everything except the murders the cast is thinned out till only the final girl is left to find out Milo's dull,I mean dark secret.She and her friends have been dying to know.Once discovered,Milo goes on yet another murderous rampage(isn't it his bedtime yet?) and the girl,well she screams a lot.The acting is not even bottom of the barrel,the barrel refuses to be associated with it.Milo can be one creepy bastard from time to time I give him that,but some movies just can't be saved without a great script or gratuitous nudity.


This "horror" movie lacks any horror or even mild suspense. Even the gore is not good. The plot would have some promise if it was done by someone who cared about what they're writing/filming, but the people who made this movie obviously did not. Basically, the film proceeds in a series of fits and starts thusly:

Main character insists she's not crazy.

"Milo" lurks about in his yellow raincoat or rides in front of a car on his bike.

Main character insists she's not crazy and rambles on about her passion as a schoolteacher.

Someone gets killed in an unsatisfying manner.

Main character insists she's not crazy and musters up a few fake sobs.

Are we seeing a pattern here? If you don't, you may enjoy this film. Otherwise, watch something else. The budget is low, low, low AND IT SHOWS (unlike say, THE EVIL DEAD, which makes you forget about its crap budget), and the acting is bad, bad, bad (with the possible exception of the janitor). In general the movie is boring, boring, boring. I can't think of a single scene that's actually done well. In fact, I disliked the movie so much I actually turned it off ten minutes before the end, something I very rarely do... heck, I watched the non-MSTied MANOS, THE CLONES, and WILD WILD WEST all the way through.

3/10. Spare yourself and watch PHANTASM again.


In a quiet town a couple of girls witness the murder of one of their friends to a strange young boy named Milo, who lives on the other side of town. After the murder, his body is found in a river and his pronounced dead. So sixteen years later a weddings draws the girls back to their childhood town and Claire a school teacher becomes obsessed that Milo hasn't died as she has recurring visions of him and her friends are dying one by one and no one believes her when she claims Milo is apart of it. So now, she sets off to find out the horrifying truth.

When I came across this film, I was pretty sceptical about it, especially when it had "From the creators of Anaconda" on the front cover, but reading the odd little plot outline on the back of the video case, it sounded alright and rather refreshing for a change. Well, guess what? I thought it was a good idea at the time, but it was a totally different story when it came to watching the film. It just seemed to try to hard to be smart and very psychological based, but that latter element didn't come off that well for me and it was basically a prolonged and mostly unconvincing thriller. Hey, I'll admit it had its moments, but hardly enough to make it neither effectively chilling, or memorable. But, a bravo to the filmmakers, at least the story isn't a rehash of those slasher imitators that followed "Scream" and shock horror, there's no self-referential humour evident actually there isn't even a HINT of humour. Although, maybe it was too serious? Especially, since the plot is rather absurd, but that's not its main problem. What a disjointed plot we get, I didn't know about to much that was going on, as it seems to skim a lot stuff in favour for some supposedly shocking and disturbing sequences. No! More like irrelevant scenes and yawn inducing clichés that we see from time to time. Also you can see some influences from some "good" 70's horror films, one being "Don't Look Now". This when our main character keeps on seeing the figure of her past in a slicker. The other would have to be one of my favourites "Alice, Sweet Alice" with the person causing the trouble wearing a yellow slicker and committing grisly deaths. Interesting idea but it comes across quite shallow and too many faults pop up. I liked it more when the scenes dealt with the character's childhood, as the performances and circumstances had something creepy about it, but when it leans into their adulthood its tired and uneventful for most part and the performances weren't awful, but incredibly mundane and hardly involving is a good way of putting it. Most of the dialogue had me groaning in disbelief at how contrived and awkward it was. You'll be yelling "no duh!" at the screen, because you just can't believe what you're hearing. The police detective gets the brunt of it!

Quality wise - the film isn't bad, actually it's better then your usual straight to video I would say. Very slick stuff. With some inventive and prominent camera angles and a faint score that works reasonably well. Another factor that stood out and was a key to building on the moody atmosphere was the creeping sound effects and that bicycle bell does leave a ringing sensation in your ears. The setting of a quiet elementary school was well done and rest of the action takes place in a house. But, just don't be expecting any real suspense or surprises as the execution of these are non-existent. The deaths aren't pleasant and they're mildly bloody and it's more the aftermath to what happens to these bodies, which tries to disturb you. The villain in this piece, the mean-spirited child Milo Jeeder was mildly unnerving, well that voice and yellow slicker does make an imprint to begin with, but it does seem to lose its effect when we come to the films conclusion. The cheesy tag lines on the video compare him to (move over) Jason, (watch out) Freddy and (this isn't child's play) Chucky, but you got to be kidding me! Right? He's labelled "The New face of evil", yeah sure. All he needs is to be taught some manners and problem solved. Overall, the film just left me with a sour taste, as I've could've gone without seeing it. I probably wished I did.

Just don't expect too much in this blur of a film. Or, even better just skip it, as you won't be missing out on much, really.


Typical story of an evil kid going after people. I suspect that Antonio Fargas (Huggy Bear on "Starsky and Hutch") and Vincent Schiavelli didn't want to stress this junk on their resumes (actually, Schiavelli left this life with a mostly good resume). Sometimes I wish that the killers in these movies would just go after the idiots who decide that we need a new one of these movies every other month (note: that comment is not to be taken seriously; I just think that slashers have lost their touch).

Anyway, this is one movie that you'll do best to avoid. It's ninety minutes to two hours that I'll never get back.


This movie was so weak that it couldn't even come up with good cliches to rip off. I love horror movies and will see practically anything, but if I had it to do over again I would have skipped this one entirely. You may think that I'm exaggerating, but I challenge anyone to find anything even remotely satisfying or interesting about this piece of garbage. Not scary, not funny, not curious, not worth it.


Stay away from this movie at all costs. I was suckered into watching this movie in a bet to see which one of us knew the t "worst movie of all time". Needless to say this one won hands down. It is long and drawn out, and has no purpose or plot from what I can gather. A movie about a killer kid raised from a fetus that was grown outside the womb just has no place inside your vcr. If you are extremely bored and have no life watch this movie. But if you rather keep your sanity, stay AWAY.


This movie was crap. The script is so full of holes; I can't see how the producers agreed to finance it.

We are never given an explanation of ANYTHING. The acting is horrible. The plot sucks. This movie was obviously written for those 8 and under.

I have to say this: why are the high school classes only 2 minutes long? Teacher walks in, finds a frog in the desk, or drawing on the chalkboard, and 30 seconds later, the bell rings, class is over. The kids haven't even opened their books. Can we have at least a little continuity?

Oh, the dialogue. Milo Jeter is the re-incarnated, aborted fetus, zombie thing. Do we really need the line, "This is Dr. Jeter's office. Dr. Jeter, Milo's father." Thanks for the tip; I could never put that together myself. It never gets any better.

Why does Milo talk the way he does, even in the beginning? Was Milo ever `real'. Or was he never real, just always what he currently is? And if it was always that way, why the unexplained `accident' Milo had?

Besides "What is Milo?", what are all the unresolved items for? We see all these contraptions in his father's medical office, and are never given an explanation of what they are for, or what they have to do with the story. What are the injections for? What about the aquarium contraption? They obviously aren't needed. (See the movie, it'll make sense). And what does this medication do to anyone? Apparently nothing, since it has no effect on the lead actress.

This movie is a very, very bad rip off of all the other slasher movies. It's a really awful Friday the 13th/Halloween slopped together by a 10-year old writer. It's not cheesy enough to laugh at, it's just an incredibly frustrating bore.


This movie was by far the worst movie I've ever had to endure. I couldn't believe that they tried to pass it off as a serious movie, it was so bad I couldn't even laugh at it's pathetic attempt to entertain me. If you want cheesy horror that you can laugh at, rent Dr. Giggles instead.


This has got to be the worst horror movie I have EVER seen.

I hated it so much I wanted to come here and complain about how bad it was. Normally bad movies are no big deal, but something about this one if you hated it.. you really hate it.

If anyone liked this you probably enjoyed Baby Geniuses, I thought I could never find a movie that was worse then that one.. I guess not.


this movie scared the hell out of me for no good reason. the eerie music was well written but other than that, its a complete waste of time, and it REALLY disturbed me.... I'm not really sure why either.... if you just want to see a bad 'B' horror movie, i guess you could give it a shot, but only as a last resort


This movie sucked sooo bad, I couldn't even watch the ending. Milo's voice was too low and I couldn't understand what he said as well as some of Kendra's lines. Also, where did he get all these wedding dresses from; it was very impractical. The movie failed to elaborate on Milo's drowning and how it made people ridicule Dr. Jeter and his practice. Overall, I was disappointed that I was unable to give this movie a rating of zero because by grading this movie as a one, I felt I was giving it undeserved praise.


I happened to catch this supposed "horror" flick late one Friday night, I wish I'd gone to bed! Tell me.. Is a 3 ft tall raincoat-clad twerp on a gurly bike supposed to convey some sort of fear? Not here, yet Mi-low is still able to beat the crap out of the janitor (Antonio Fargas) who is three times his size(?) uh-huh. And the ending is so pitiful... it just leaves you hanging with nothing to go on what-so-ever! I found myself asking, "Is that it???"

Acting is about as good as it'll get in a low budget film. The aforementioned Fargas delivers a decent performance; but it is my conclusion that Jennifer Jostyn maybe one of the worse actresses to ever strut into Tinsel Town! Sure, cute face, but bad acting.

Rating: 1


This is easily one of the worst films I've seen in many years. I started viewing the film not expecting much and that is exactly what it delivered....not much! In fact, it ended up delivering even less than I expected. My first reaction when I saw the opening portions of the film was that I would probably end up rating it a "4". I thought that it seemed to have reasonably good photography and a haunting atmosphere.

As the film progressed however, the rating kept going down and down in my mind mainly due to pedestrian acting and a plot that went from being just plain silly and tasteless at the beginning to being both silly and repugnant near the end. By the time the movie was over, I was willing to rate it no more than a "1".

Don't waste your time or money on this one.


Four young grade-school girls witness the murder of one of their classmates during what they thought was just an innocent game. The killer is a strange young boy named Milo Jeeder. Sixteen years later, the four survivors of the event re-unite under happier circumstances in the same town where it happened. They believe that Milo drowned in a river shortly after the murder, but soon learn that the demonic killer Milo has also returned, still a young boy, unchanged even after almost two decades.

The cover for this movie makes it look really cool (yet I still expected a bad movie to come out of it). When I pop in the DVD into my player, the menu comes up and makes the film still look cool. Sadly, this movie isn't all that it got my excited about. The movie is your average attempt at a slasher film and when I say average, I mean just like all those other small-budget slasher movies that have never been welcomed with open arms into most members of the horror community (I'm talking about you, the horror fan). In other words, you could walk up to any horror fan and the majority of responses would be "this sucks".

What mistakes did the movie make? First of all, the DVD cover art makes Milo look really dark but they blow it all by showing his face in the movie in many different scenes. He had the potential of being a very freaky character. Secondly, the back of the cover art tells Freddy, Jason, Chucky etc to pack their bags and move on out because Milo is so much better... why in the hell would you want to say something like that when it comes to a no-name, low-budget slasher film that has obviously failed? I mean, it just raises your expectations of the movie, making it harder to impress itself upon you. In a last ditch effort to attract attention, it says (in very big letters) "From the creator of Anaconda". Just shows you how low they're going to get as much attention as possible for the movie.

The gore in the movie sucks, the director gives you some hideous angles when Milo attacks someone. The music isn't all that bad and I never once fell asleep during the movie (congratulations). I'm still trying to figure out what Milo actually is. My best bet would be that he is a zombie, if anyone else knows, tell me. Rest assured, I won't be losing any sleep over thinking about it.


Milo is a complete rip off of the 1992 slasher flick Mikey, if you actually check it up both films have the same tagline!But if you want to watch an incredibly funny film with absolutely no plot whatsoever......well then this is the film for you.The acting is terrible and the flashback scenes are overwhelmingly confusing. The story behind this atrocity is simple Milo Jeeder is a kid with serious family problems,his father is an abortion doctor who keeps unborn feoutus's in a jar (NICE!) and was desperate for a child of his own, he figured out a way to bring one of these aborted children to life and he named him............. MILO!!!!!

Aside from all the Bad Acting,Terrible directing,annoying sound of Milo's voice and the ear piercing sound of the bell on his bike ,if you take away all that badness its still a bad but funny attempt at a film.

I'll give it a bank busting 1 out of 10


This was a very good show. I enjoyed the construction of real time and flashback, seeing the old Diggers meeting again and recalling the terrors of their captivity in Changi POW Camp. The main problem with the way the show was written is that the scenes of life in Changi are more like a holiday camp than what the place must have been like. I am old enough to remember film footage of the men being liberated from Changi and other Japanese POW camps. No actor could lose enough weight to have a resemblance of the state of those men. They made the Jews of Belsen look like sumo wrestlers. I have met several veterans from Changi over the years. Many would never ride in a Japanese car, let alone own one. The physical and mental torture those men endured was too horrific for them to even talk about. What percentage survived? John Doyle might be OK writing comedy for "Roy and HG" (I hate that too) but this is a serious sugar coating of history that should never have been tolerated. I'm happy for satirists to write "The Life of Brian" and make fun of the Crucifixion because it is obviously comedy, even if some consider it to be in bad taste. "Changi" is written as a portrayal of a real event and, as such, might be regarded by younger people as a true record. Great performances by a fine cast cannot redeem this lightweight screenplay.


"Changi" is an Australian comedy/drama set in the World War 2 Japanese prisoner of war camp of that name. The story cuts between past events, and the present day, when the aged veterans plan a reunion. This is a much publicised and controversial miniseries, here in Australia. The budget ran over ($6.5 million Aust. dollars); historians and veterans criticised it's authenticity; and critics pilloried the uneasy mix of comedy and drama (shades of "Pearl Harbor"). Series writer John Doyle (half of the successful Roy & H.G. comedy team), has tried to defend himself with comments about "the characters are composites of actual people"; "the troops used comedy to cope with the situation"; "it's only based on actual events"; "one of our actors was actually there" etc. I don't have a problem with any of these points. Many superb fictional and factual dramas have come out of the Japanese P.O.W. camp experience: "King Rat", "Tenko", "Merry Christmas Mr. Lawrence", "Bridge on the River Kwai", "Paradise Road", "Empire of the Sun", "Blood Oath", and "A Town Like Alice". Black comedy has often been used successfully in P.O.W dramas: "Life is Beautiful", "The Great Escape", "Seven Beauties", "Stalag 17", "The Colditz Story", and even "Hogan's Heroes". So why is "Changi" a monumental failure? - the acting in "Changi" is uniformly excellent, the music and cinematography is good - it is the writing and direction that have let it down. Every scene seemed to give me waves of deja vu. When Anthony Hayes is made to stand in the blazing sun, I thought "Didn't I see Alec Guinness do this in "Bridge on the River Kwai"?". The sudden flashes into surreal song & dance brought back Dennis Potter's "Singing Detective", but without the finesse. This borrowing happened so often, it smacked of lazy writing by cut and paste, rather than homage. The constant intercutting between the past and present stories left me unable to concentrate on either. Flash forward and flash back can be a useful tool - here it left me distanced from characters, where intensity was called for. The "Ausiness" is overdone - every conversation seemed to include "stone the bloody crows" & such, that I was saying "I get the point, I know they're Aussies". Cultural stereotyping extended to the British and Japanese too -sadistic young Japanese officer; uptight British officer; wiser Japanese commandant; fun-loving, rascally Aussies etc. I thought I was watching "Hogan's Heroes on the River Kwai". After 3 episodes I'm tuning out.


I was forced to watch 'Changi' last year in year 10 Australian History. Looking around the class room, both classes, all 40 students were nearly asleep, all 40 heads on the table whispering to the person next to them. I refuse to believe that because I am only 16, that my opinion doesn't count, having studied world war two, I not only felt embarrassed and ashamed watching this Australian piece of trash television. I was out of my mind at the appalling effort this mini series applied in the usage of film elements. The acting was poor, the screenplay was very inaccurate and the score was dreadful. Please, do not watch this film, it is bias and very racists (to the Japans).


Lazy movie made by a lazy director. The characters are grotesque. Despite the tragic of this war, there is no emotion at all in the movie. Symbolism is artificial and inefficient (and old Bosnian woman giving a photo of her son to Arbour will "concretize" her willingness, will awake the super-mother sleeping inside her, a corpse eaten by worms to show the horror of genocide... too much is sometimes worst than not enough).

This movie is only an advertisement, an empty elegy to a woman who is not a hero. She worked for United Nations. Remember UN failed to protect civilians at Srebrenica. Who are the true heroes of this war? A Canadian judge leading post-mortem trial for atrocities that happened mostly because her organization failed to prevent them? Where is the criticism in this movie?


Thank God I was not operating any heavy machinery, it could have been an even worst disaster. Shots were slow & very repetitive. Different scenes, same shots, medium shot, medium shot, medium shot, snooze. Story line was rather empty. William Hurt was the worst. Where did he get that stupid accent from? Random shots of scenery just to include them really didn't add much. There were more shots of Arbour traveling in her car than anything else. The direction really didn't take us into any of the scenes & it also didn't make me feel for any of the characters. I would have rated it a zero if IMDb had the option. Great sedative if you can't sleep. There went 2 hours of my life I will never get back.


I watched the first few episodes a short while back and felt I couldn't take it anymore. The horrible looking fight scenes are the worst I've ever scene in my life. About one-third of each episode is dedicated to Flash Gordon and his "mighty" fight moves. I know fight choreography from that era isn't exactly up to par with today's standards, but this is ridiculous. They don't even try to make it look realistic. Flash Gordon, who hardly resembles a fighter, uses his drunken slow moves and bare fist to knock out four or five guys with knives, guns, and other weapons. Give me a break! There's also a scene where he does some similar act while in the water. Basically every episode has scenes similar to that. As for the rest of the episode, there's not much else I remember. I basically viewed it out of curiosity on what science fiction looked like 70 years ago.


Retro Puppet Master starts in Kolewige during 1944 where puppet master Andre Toulon (Guy Rolfe) & his living puppets plan to escape Germany, hold up in an Inn puppet master Toulon reminisces about his early life & the point at which he learned the secret of giving life to dead objects way back in 1902 in Paris when his younger self (Greg Sestero) ran the Theate Magique. He describes the fateful night when he met a 3000 year old Egyptian sorcerer named Afzel (Jack Donner) & the eventual love of hi life the young & beautiful Ilsa (Brigitta Dau). He tells the story of how Afzel passed the gift of life to himself & gave life to his own wooden puppets that were part of the Theatre Magique show. However the gift of life was also a curse as the ancient God Sutek whom the secret was stolen from in the first place by Afzel wants it back & everyone who has learnt it dead...

As of late I have been on a bit of a Puppet Master bender as being a big fan of the first three I decided to watch the rest of the franchise & as such I have seen Puppet Master 4 (1993), Puppet Master 5: The Final Chapter (1994), Curse of the Puppet Master (1998) & now Retro Puppet Master in the space of a couple of weeks & boy was it tough to get through them all, especially this one as it's the worse of the series so far. Retro Puppet Master feels like a cross between Puppet Master III: Toulon's Revenge (1991) with it's period setting & Puppet Master 4 & Puppet Master 5: The Final Chapter with Sutek trying to kill everyone associated with his stolen life giving secret. There's not much continuity here either, again there's none of the green serum featured in the earlier films & despite Andre Toulon committing suicide in 1939 at the start of the original Puppetmaster (1989) he is seen alive & well during 1944 in this. The majority of the story is told as a flashback & concentrates on Andre Toulon himself rather than the puppets, the film focuses on his relationship with Ilsa & him learning the secret of life & it's all rather dull & tedious stuff to be honest. Even at only 80 odd minutes Retro Puppet Master feels long & padded with no real pace & the no central concept as the plot never really settles down & generally hops around a lot. Then of course there's the baffling decision to totally redesign the puppets which I found incredible, I mean why would the makers take the one basic thing that made the Puppet Master films so memorable & completely do away with it? The puppets are seen briefly at the start & the end but otherwise we get these rubbishy looking wooden caricatures that are nowhere near as cool as their modern re-workings. It's never even explained why these puppets were used rather than the ones all Puppet Master fans have come to love although one suspects that Full Moon was hoping to make yet another sequel which dealt with that very question.

If a poor story & a complete lack of our favourite puppets wasn't bad enough Full Moon decided to go with a PG-13 rating for this making Retro Puppet Master the only Puppet Master film not rated 'R' in the US (obviously other countries have their own film ratings systems) & therefore there's not a single drop of blood in the entire film, the puppets don't kill anyone, there's no swearing & no nudity either. This is tamer than tame kids stuff all the way. Besides the puppets themselves being rubbish the special effect are the wost of the series too, there's no stop motion animation at all in this one, no CGI computer effects (surely in 1999 CGI was cheap enough?) & all the effects are of the stiff rod puppet type effects. I mean whenever you see a puppet 'walk' the camera is always positioned above it's wait so it's legs don't have to be shown & there's obviously some production assistant just pushing the thing along, that's as complex & state of the art as the special effects get.

The one positive thing that Retro Puppet Master does have going for it is that it looks rather nice, the period production design, costumes & props are actually quite impressive & it's a fairly handsome film to watch at times. Apparently filmed in Bucharest in Romania which doubles up quite nicely for turn of the last century Paris. The acting here is awful & maybe the worst of the series.

Retro Puppet Master is more or less the final Puppet Master film as the next one Puppet Master: The Legacy (2004) basically edits together footage from the previous seven films & it's a pretty crappy way to round the series off which started so well with three excellent & distinctive little killer puppet flicks. Don't bother with this, just watch one of the first three again & just remember the good times... The killer puppets would return in the terrible spin-off flick Puppet Master vs Demonic Toys (2004).


Now this is a movie I really dislike. It's one of the most boring Horror movies from the 90's mainly because it starts slow and centers in a boring atmosphere. The settings are not even attractive for the eye and do not serve for the movie's purpose.

The puppets look really cheesy , not in a good way like in the Puppet Master 80's flicks. What did they do to our favorite toys?!

The story is lame, not interesting and NEVER really explains the sinister origins of the puppets. There aren't death scenes like in previous movies and the f/x are terrible.

I felt asleep the first time I watched it, so I can recommend it for insomniacs.


In the literal sense....

Reminds you of those "cops-and-robber" or cowboys-indians" role-playing games you played with your 8 year old friends.

Tedious and un-inspired, the storyline was obviously written to make bad acting and dialogue seem as part of the plot, but all it does is showcase it. I cant believe John Badham let his name be associated with this piece of crap. This could have been done better by a high school film buff who had been given the camera lighting, filmstock and editing

Destined to be a time-filler on Sci-fi channel, when they've overused everything else from their library, and barely better than the paid programming shill downstream.


I have never seen a movie so bad. It's not even entertaining enough to be a drinking game.

It's SO bad, I don't even want to talk about it... and that's the whole point of this, isn't it? PLEASE. Don't bother to see this movie. 'Nuf said.


Retro Puppet Master is complete and utter CRAP.In particular,the puppets look stupid,and crappy.The acting was unforgivable and the story was rancid.This movie goes back into the the past,where the dolls where first created,thats not Puppet Master.Retro Puppet Master is rated PG-13,the first Puppet Master to be rated PG-13.The movie contains no horror,or suspense.The fact that this movie was a Puppet Master film boggles the mind,because this installment doesnt have the buckets of blood,good acting,or any entertaiment like the previous movies did.Dont see this movie,dont rent it,and dont even watch it f its on TV,because this film is stale,not violent,and completely crappy.2 out of 10.As a Puppet Master fan,I am disappointed...seriously.


Very disappointing 7th chapter of this slowly dying series. Very evident that the budget was extremely low. This movie was made for one reason and one reason alone. To sell Puppet Master Toys! Fans, such as myself of the series have decided, from what I have read and heard that the only one in the series worse than this is Curse of the Puppetmaster. In turn, turning us away from the series.

Opting to make this a PG-13 film, for whatever reason, did not work in the films favor. The plot seemed almost to be there, but was easily lost in the steady stream of nonsense.

The only film in the series worth watching, also directed by Decoteau is part 3 - Toulon's Revenge.

Granted, I do favor the scenery in the film.

Yuck!


AAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! WHEN DOES THE HURTING STOP? That's what I said somewhere between the beginning and that other part of the movie that really sucked. This film nearly sapped all the life out of me and I have sat through some really bad movies. Coming from a true Puppet Master fan, I would expect to hear myself say this, but it's true. The plot is inane, the special effects awful, the sound track the most benawl, infernal tootling I have ever heard. Oh! I almost forgot about the acting, it was so bad that I forgot it was there at all, nuff said. The only redeeming factor in the film is the puppets themselves they truly are the stars and could out-act all but Guy Rolfe himself(he is the puppetmaster)and although you can see their wires and strings, they carry me throughout the painful start to finish of Retro-Puppet Master. In closing, PM7 is recomended for true fanatics who happen to be masochists.

Roach


Latest attempt to revive the series actually based on a pretty good idea but without the required gore fx/violence for this type of thriller - and thus... BORING!! Good special fx, sets, costumes, etc. but the film comes of just plain silly and a near-waste of time... hopefully the next installment will correct this problem.


You know, I'm sure the boys were sitting around the office one day and said, "HOW CAN WE MAKE MORE MONEY?" They had made every possible variant of toy they could make with their current characters. So they decide, let's steal the star wars idea, A PREQUEL, and we can make up all new characters, and sell them as toys. Incidently something they did in puppet master 3, but who cares? Anyway they pick a point in time before the first movie when Toulon is still alive, he and the puppets are sitting around, and a wooden head roll on the floor and the puppets want to know if that is a dead family member or something, it doesn't matter. So the tale of the puppet master ancestry begins. It's long, it's boring, no body cares.

The funniest part is, they tell the origin of these new characters in the movie, but give no clues of their fate. SO GUESS WHAT, once the revenue from the new toys pays off, they can fundsa new (and 4th straight rotten) sequel, called "PUPPET MASTER 8 THE SEQUEL TO THE PREQUEL OF THE FATE OF THE DEAD RETRO PUPPETS!" hold your breath!


This seventh (yes you read right - the seventh) Puppet Master movie shows how the demented group of dolls came to be; by a french puppeteer who uses them to get revenge on a group of ancient mummies who are after him once they learn that he holds the secret to life. It was taught to him by a sorcerer, also on the run, before he died. He used this power to bring normal puppets to life. This sequel is basically nonsense, sprinkled upon even more nonsense like most of the Puppet Master sequels. Due to the PG13 rating, we don't even get any entertaining puppet murders. Come to think of it, there are NO damn puppet murders. If there was one franchise that needed to be cut off it would be this one. No more....god, please no more...


This film may have been the first Puppet Master but this sure bored me to death when I saw this stupid movie,I wanted a refund. This was a bad series to the Puppet Master and I'm sure that I am not the only one that thinks this was terrible. To some it was great but, to others it was a ticket to snores-ville and boy are they right. The puppets didn't even do anything nor did they kill people. It should't be seen by people so I'm warning you not to see it. You will be disappointed even to the fans who love Puppet Master, it was a waste of their time and it didn't make so much money.Nobody even got kill but one or two,very pointless.

1/10


This son of a son of a sequel was terrible to say the least. You would think that production would be better 10 years after the original was released, however Retro Puppet Master was not directed by or written by the original writers and contained poor story, lack of any emmontional connection to any characters, and dragged out slowly scene to scene. No build up of strong plot, very weak climax, you will find yourself slowly getting antsy throughout the movie, if you can sit through the whole reel. I never could understand why a horror movie continues making sequels after the release of their "final chapter." I hardly suggest watching this flick, but if you must I wouldn't recommend making anyone else sit through it with you.


As a kid, I never understood WHY anyone would watch this very crappy show. It was pretty stupid and I always wanted Spridle and Jim-Jim to get in some sort of fatal accident (they were THAT annoying).

Now, almost 40 years later, I have a new attitude about the cartoon. While I still think it was complete crap, this is only in regard to the American version of the show. That's because I was reading a book about anime and found out that the shows we watched growing up were completely different from those originally shown in Japan. You see, the idiots in charge of syndicating the series thought it was too violent so they cut this out of the episodes. That's bad enough, but what else they did is beyond belief--they actually chopped the episodes apart and spliced them together to create shows that were NOTHING like the originals! For example, one episode might be made up of parts of episodes 3, 6, 18 and 27! As a result, I really don't know if the original show really was bad--it might have been brilliant. But who can tell considering all we have to watch is this Americanized mess!?


It had its moments, but overall when I watched this cartoon as a child I was bored out of my mind. The only thing that kept me watching was the fact that it was a cartoon, probably my first exposure to anime. It is also one of my least favorite anime's, I remember others one involving a giant ship in space that made no sense, but was more enjoyable because they were in space. I also remember one with these people dressed like birds that was a bit strange, but more entertaining. I do not really like car racing though at all, did not then and still do not so that is probably one of the reasons I did not care for this show even though today I am an avid anime fan. The characters were a bit goofy too, and then there was the horrible scenes where virtually no action was taking place that was probably used to cut down on animation costs and to pad the show. The gadgets in the cars were cool though and provided some entertainment for me back then. Overall, I find this show to be rather unwatchable compared to newer animes and some from the same era, but this is just a personal opinion I am sure many other reviewers love the show which is cool.


Wow. After seeing this film, you will know why America's youth continues to lack intelligence and any traits to contribute to the wellbeing of society, except for making themselves more inept to function.

Jackass Number Two stars some of the most repremandable people imaginable, who at there core lack any sort of talent or brains to make anything of themselves (especially Bam Margera and Steve-O), and there only option for fame was to make a living entertaining those as stupid as them by harming there being. A guy drinking horse semen? Just flat disgusting. A man putting a fish hook through his cheek and acting as "bait" for sharks? This isn't humor, it's evidence for institutionalizing him.

Overall, I walked out of the theater with no hope for mankind.


When Family Guy first premiered, I was not in a discriminating mood. With the 1990s containing a wealth of clever, surreal cartoons, why should I be? Nickelodeon produced Doug; Ren and Stimpy and Rockos Modern Life among other fine cartoons(Yes, this includes Spongebob).All had quirky, dreamlike animation and surprisingly sophisticated stories and dialog. The Simpsons became an outright phenomenon, perhaps not as brilliant as its biggest defenders claim it to be, but a very fine investment of your time and certainly dismisses the false axiom that all TV is junk. South Park started out as a crude but hilarious attack on everything with unique and intelligent satire underneath. It evolved to become a Monty Python- esquire show with outrageous concepts and brutally swift and sharp societal critiques(Such as their defense of the noble underpants gnomes) and eventually settled to be entirely self referential and "meta" like the Simpsons did, and has unfortunately jumped the shark. Family Guy is superficially like The Simpsons and South Park. It pushes buttons and is a favorite among college students and bestiality enthusiasts. However, what it has in loquacity it lacks in true wit.

The show is famous for its use of gimmicks, especially for flashbacks. Many are references to bad TV sitcoms or commercials. Some are funny(Especially from the first two seasons), most are not. Are references inherently funny? I'm not sure, but they are mostly what the show stands on considering that its characters are painfully uninteresting. Where Homer and Bart have charm, and Cartman has an artillery of self awareness and pure outrageousness to back up his awful behavior, Peter Griffin has no excuse. He's just a loud, obnoxious pig. Anything funny coming from his character is only because the writers forget how to be unfunny that day. Lois is also very shallow and dull; Meg is a prop, only to be abused; Chris is borderline retarded and only occasionally funny, and the two main stars of the show(Stewie and Brian) are so inconsistent in their characterizations that it all really kind of pointless.

Other gimmicks I can't stand are when a character points to something obviously and lingers on it for an uncomfortably long time. This happens a lot lately, and I can't bear it any longer. Not just the oft mentioned chicken that likes to beat Peter up, I'm talking about the painful moments where they talk about pop culture and prod it as if they are alien spectators. That's not wit or even ironic humor, it's totally boring and lifeless.

Not that the show can't be funny, in fact some of the earlier episodes had me rolling. Highlights include the pilot episode, where Peter loses touch with reality after losing his precious television; when Peters religious zealot father shows up and wreaks havoc; When Peter becomes a narc at Megs school, and the "pancake" episode. I suspect these are the episodes that accidentally incorporated actual human traits in its characters, or merely were times the writers had actual comedic inspiration.

One last thing, the show is not offensive. It's only offensive to those who wouldn't watch the show in the first place, so it's almost like a circle jerk to the choir of hipsters.


This could have been great. The voice-overs are exactly right and fit the characters to a T. One small problem though; the look of the characters, mostly the supporting or guest characters look exactly the same. The same bored look on every face only with minor changes such as hairlines or weight size. It looks kind of odd to see a really big guest star's voice coming out of a lifeless form like the characters here. If I am not mistaken Kathy Griffin did a voice-over for this show and it looked too odd to be funny.

There is a few other problems, one being the family plot. The Simpsons did it much better where you could actually buy most of the situations the characters got themselves into. Here we get too much annoying diversions, like someone having a weird fantasy and then we are supposed to find that funny but for some reason the delivery is a bit off. As you can probably tell it is hard for me to put a finger on exactly what is wrong with this show because it basically nothing more than a clone of the Simpsons or even more "Married with Children".

If I should point a finger on what is totally wrong with this it probably is it's repetitiveness. Peter Griffin is not really a bright character but neither are any of the others. Lois should have been named Lois Lame because she is sort of one-dimensional. Seth Green as the kind of retarded son is the best thing about this show and that is the most stereotypical part on the show.

So what more can I say. There isn't exactly anything wrong with this show but in the long run you have to admit that it takes a lot of work to do what the Simpsons has done for almost two decades.


I must admit I did enjoy the earlier episodes, but probably because I was younger and stupid at the time. I was sorta excited about the return of family guy until I saw the "new" crap they were putting out. No surprise, it was exactly like the old crap. All the lame jokes were there including the flash backs, except this time they added a joke about a old creepy pedophile who seems to be in EVERY SINGLE EPISODE. this is just one of the annoying gags family guy lives off of, and for some reason people keep watching. its no longer funny, its just annoying. let it die.

maybe family guy was funny at a point in time, and the cheap laughs and gags were original and fresh, but now its just not funny anymore. if you actually do find family guy funny than you must be retarded or borderline retarded.


Everything about this show is terrible. Its premise even sets itself up to get cheap laughs with bad writing. A "disfunctional family"-theme has already been used too many times, most notably by the Simpsons, which is an excellent show with great writing and many laughs. Meanwhile, Family Guy has about five minutes of story in each episode, with tons of celebrity jokes and random flashbacks thrown in. Now, if this was original or funny, sure, I'd think it was clever. But no, it's not funny at all. In fact, the only reason the episodes are like this is because it is the easiest way to effortlessly crank out episode after episode of this junk. Much of this show is unoriginal, and what is original is just lame. It is also amazingly crude and irreverent, which again can be fine if it's still intelligent. Animation isn't everything either, but from an artistic point of view, this show fails also, proving yet again that Family Guy strives for as many cheap jokes and easy shortcuts as possible. People enjoy this show, and I don't really care, because people can enjoy anything they want, no matter how much it aims for the lowest common denominator. But no, I don't recommend this, especially for anyone who wants to someday study film or become a writer. This is cheap entertainment that aims low and has found success in this. The fact that this is so successful says bad things about America.


Ya know what? Family Guy started out as something fresh, funny and more original. The random humor USED to be funny. I actually used to think it was the best animated sitcom next to The Simpsons. After watching the new episodes that aired for the past few weeks; I grew fed up with the show relying too much on random humor to be funny. South Park was right about FG dead on when they brought up the Manatees and the idea balls.

And watching the show itself, I don't understand why my parents like it so much; there's nothing great about it. The "Intellegent" humor is funny and would've been funnier if the show didn't rely on randomness.


this is the most overrated show on television. i believe people continue to watch it because they feel they should, because it has become somewhat of a "cool" show to watch and talk to your friends about the next day at work or school. rarely does it actually elicit anything more than a chuckle and never provokes any sense of irony or thought from the audience. every joke is interchangeable with "punchlines" that seem to be drawn out of a hat. the complete lack of originality combined with the even somehow lamer spin off it has spawned (see: American Dad) makes me question the intelliegence of an audience that continues to keep this horrid show on TV. i award family guy no points and may god have mercy on its soul...


Words cannot describe how asinine, juvenile,and repetitive this steaming pile of a series is. It relies on 3 things: 1. Constant 80s pop culture references 2. the tired "stretch out a joke to the point of awkwardness" bit, and 3. at least 3 or 4 pointless flashbacks per episode. The only reason I can see for this crap fest being as popular as it is for the constant pop culture references which I suppose elicit an "OMG LOL THAT'S FROM SUPERFRIENDS!! THAT IS SO TOTALLY IRONIC, AND I AM SO EDGY AND SMART FOR GETTING IT!!" response from the viewer. The writing is beyond lazy, and panders to its viewers, mostly in their 20s and 30s. Plus there's the character design, which seems to consist of the same three characters with the same bored expressions drawn over and over again, but with different skin colors and maybe a different hairline occasionally. Insulting crap.


Family Guy is easily one of the worst shows I've ever forced myself to watch (Not at THE bottom, though - I've seen The Jersey Shore). A popular hit with high school and college kids who mistake immaturity for edginess, this show is unoriginal and stale.

As this has been dubbed a comedy show, let's take a look at its "humor." 1. Random flashbacks/cuts to celebrities or movies or politics or anything that can be cut to for a knee-jerk laugh. It got old after the 5 or so repetitions per episode. Simple solution: Every time you hear "This is worse than/like the time...", plug your ears.

2. Inappropriateness for its own sake. This show is notorious for inserting inappropriate gags that have little to do with the overall plot. Solution: Watch South Park. They did it right.

The bottom line is that Family Guy is not worth your time, and doesn't hold a candle to The Simpsons.


I haven't seen a lot of episodes of "Family Guy" and it's a pretty safe bet that I won't be seeing too many in the future. Some people say to compare this show to "The Simpsons" is unfair. I absolutely think this show wouldn't exist if "The Simpsons" hadn't come first and I absolutely think it wants so very much to be "The Simpsons". I don't understand what's so funny about this show. In the episodes that I've watched, I've understood where they've WANTED me to laugh, I understand that someone thinks a joke was just told but the joke isn't funny. I find the whole show to be lazy: the title, the "jokes", there is a complete lack of inspiration throughout.

The best shows on television (cartoon or not) are created like this: a script is written, it goes through several rewrites, stuff that doesn't work is taken out, inspiration is sparked, good stuff is added, there are more rewrites and then it is filmed.

I picture a "Family Guy" episode to be created like this: a script is written and it's filmed.


It's literally the Three Stooges all over again, without the charm. This show's nothing more than the worst slapstick. I'm surprised they actually have writers. The so-called jokes are completely haphazard, and 'controversial' for no other point than trying very (very) hard to be controversial. And people think this is 'edgy'?? Get a clue: this show takes absolutely no thought, time, effort, money, or creativity/originality to produce. Any references present are geared toward anyone between the ages of 6 and 16 who would occasionally browse People magazine. But I suppose this is only what all the kiddies want, like and need today.


It is such a shame that so many people "love" Family Guy, because it is easily one of the worst shows on TV, there are many points to address here.

The Flashbacks: Now, in Season 1 and 2, which I think was exceptional, the flashbacks were quite frequent, and actually somewhat tied into what the plot was about and was even funny. Now season 4 and on, the flashback s are even more occurring, and has NOTHING to do with the plot, aren't funny, and really long, boring, and meaningless. Family Guy thinks that long drag scene which go nowhere are funny, when really it is poor writing.

Stewie: Wow, a baby that sounds British. How funny can that be? It's not. His character is so unstable it's unbelievable. Remember in the early season's when Stewie was all about world domination and killing Lois. Well now he just has scene's that are awkwardly gay with Brian. From wanting world domination to being gay = bad writing.

References: How do they manage to keep making poor references to 80's TV shows or events? Well they just re-use the same old garbage. You know, in 20 years, hopefully Family Guy will be canceled by then, if they are still doing jokes about shows from the 80's, it will be even more irrelevant than it was before. Because will have forgotten. This still keeps me wondering why they can't just writ good episodes with quality jokes.

Voice Acting: My God, the voices in this show is so poor. Seth McFarlene should just focus on his crappy episode writing and stop doing voices. All the extras in the already bad Family Guy episodes all sound the same. The Simpsons get 6 or 7 people to do ALL the voices. A few of them are voicing about 15-20 characters...all sounding very different. But why can't Family Guy do that? Oh right, it's a crappy show.

The Stuttering: Usually done by peter, Stewie, Brian and any extras, whenever they talk or are offended by something, they have to stutter out their sentence's just to try get a cheap laugh. I can't believe that Family Guy can't even speak normally to get people to laugh at their "jokes".

Offensiveness: OK, short and simple, Family Guy tries to break the barrier and be cutting edge, but really they fall flat every time. Go watch South park...

Terrible Plots: The plots and story lines are just utter trash. The Simpsons have started their 20th seasons are STILL have better plots than Family Guy. About a total of 8 or 9 minutes is flashbacks and drag scenes which have no relevance.

Popularity Lots of little kids have Stewie shirts and think hes so funny, when really they don't even get the terribly written sex jokes. They just say, "oh, ha ha, stewie!" when they don't even get it. Family Guy has gotten canceled twice, and brought back by DVD sales, how sad is that. They got canceled the first time I think after the 2nd or 3rd season, and I honestly believe, that shoulda been it. those episodes back then were superb, they shoulda left on a high note.

Drag Scenes and Falling There are scenes that go on way too long. One that just aired this last Sunday, Peter went to an executive bathroom, in which about 2 minutes was spent imitating the intro to Jurassic park, and the plot of that episode is stolen from a Seinfeld episode as well. Also a scene when Chris is working at a store and hes talking with the employee for about 5 minutes about a movie, which also features the stuttering. THE CHICKEN FIGHTS ARE SO STUPID, 3 of them, each one longer then the last. useless, unfunny writing, thinking that people enjoy long scenes of rerun fighting, between a CHICKEN, yeah a chicken. now, every time someone falls down, and by the way, NO FAMILY GUY FAN CAN DENY THIS, that every time they fall down, its under a split second, and they ALWAYS land with their arm over their back to make them look funny i guess, its been used at least 30 times.

Herman Oh jeez, everyone thinks the old pedophile is so funny when its just a really bad running gag. they've even gone to lengths of giving him singing scenes (which are very poor) and basing ENTIRE episodes around him, they've done the same thing with other characters, like the doctor, who I know has had an episode based around him.

The Simpsons Well, not much explanation needed here. There is so much evidence of Family guy stealing Simpson's jokes. How family guy is just a poor mans Simpsons.

so Im sure I've forgotten some key points somewhere, but Im sure this is enough to prove that family guy is really a terrible horribly written TV show that everyone seems to love, when really they should go watch Simpson's, Seinfeld, and Frasier.


Have you ever seen one of those shows that became so popular that it could eventually get away with any crummy nonsense and repetitive halfhearted gimmicks that it's creators can get away with? If you haven't, then you've never seen Family Guy.

Fans of the show seem to think of it as witty, edgy, and poignant. It's none of these, it is however dull, repetitive, insulting, and uninspired.

The "humor" of the show comes from two sources.

1) Irrelevant idiocy. The show often has flashbacks to things that have nothing to do with the plot and are mostly just absurd and pointless. And then there's the random movie references in which the shows characters reenact a scene from a popular movie without effectively parodying it . . . or parodying it at all(which ISN'T FUNNY!!!!!).

2) the same crap that's in every episode the show. The one guy is a sexual deviant with STD's, AHA HA! Isn't that funny?! Hey, ya know what's even funnier? Making the same joke about him anywhere between one and fifteen times in a single episode. And don't just tell it numerous times in a single episode, make sure you drag it out so that an entire scene is devoted just to telling the one joke. Now also imagine that this same routine is used over and over again for practically every character in the whole series.

The offbeat "un-PC" humor isn't as "un-PC" as they would have you believe, mostly they just say whatever morons think about the latest newspaper headlines, politicians, and random celebrities.

The series had it's moments, but now I think it's time just take the show off the air and be done with it.

You know what IS funny? I still like this more than Nausicaa of the valley of the wind.


Family guy. When the show first aired, it was fresh, original, and actually quite funny. Now, I have stopped watching it. It has become one of the worst shows on television, combining unfunny jokes, repetitive, drawn out jokes, and the hope that each joke can become funny with the inclusion of the word "bitch." Seth Macfarlane clearly has issues with himself, and he is obviously pandering to the 13 year old boys audience.

I just don't understand how something that started out so funny, so different from everything else, can devolve into this horrible mess of a "comedy" show. I seriously have heard better one liners from a pud comic.

It truly is sad to see great shows fail, and watch drivel like this continue on. Either Seth Macfarlane has stopped trying, or he believes that this show is hilarious the way it is.

Either way, God help us.

I hate this show, and will dance an irish jig when its finally cancelled.


The screen-play is very bad, but there are some action sequences that i really liked. I think the image is good, better than other romanian movies. I liked also how the actors did their jobs.


"The New hope of Romanian cinema"...if this is the new hope, then i wouldn't really like to see the saving hero of such a prolific cinema(Romanian cinema, that is). Now seriously, where should I start? 1. The crappy scenario: are you kidding me, this is not even believable not to mention it's high degree of stupidity 2. the Direction: what direction? This movie should have had psychological tension, at least that, since they have decided to make it look as trashy as possible. Oky, I admit, Radu Muntean is no Polanski, Hitchcock, Fincher or Lynch(the list could go on), but at least the minimum of effort would have been appreciated. 3. The language: Oky, I don't understand why (almost)every single Romanian director believes that if you make the movie as miserable and obscene as possible, then you have art. I don't mind explicit language or bad image quality as long as the final result makes it worthwhile. In this case, it doesn't. There is nothing to comment upon, since everything this movie wants to say was already told thousand times, the characters are far too thinly portrayed to become memorable, the "shocking events" that occur are also poorly illustrated and become unimportant. This film relies only on the self-induced emotions, on the "we must" hype. Someone was found murdered so "WE MUST" feel sad, frightened or panicked, someone went through this and that so "WE MUST" feel in a certain way. That's baloney. Because a movie is a piece of fiction, nothing is for real here. So the only true emotions are those that you discover when you wander deep into it's world(the movie's, that is)

*/* * * * *


I'm usually quite tolerant of movies, and very easily entertained, however this movie was dreadfully disappointing.

I watched this movie after seeing on the cover that William Zabka was in it (The Karate Kid bad boy) and during this movie I could see that this would be the only reason.

This film is a tremendous waste of the actors talent. The music, and sound is dreadfully tacky - I couldn't believe this of a movie made in the 90's!

I wouldn't really recommend this movie unless you're interested in one of the actors.


I couldn't believe how bad this film was, and trust me, I was not expecting a masterpiece from a made-for-cable film. I taped it just because I liked Jane Seymour. I've seen her enough to know that she is certainly an accomplished actress, so I just don't know what happened here. The characters were shallow, the dialog stilted, the acting bad, and yes that includes Seymour. It was nice seeing her play against type, but not in something this bad. I noticed that she carried a credit for executive producer, so she cannot escape blame for the sheer badness of this film. And oh, yeah, they had Barry Bostwick playing the male lead. 'Nuff said.


This is so blatantly a made-for-TV ripoff of Black Widow (1987) - even the insect titles are so similar.

If you want a better "marrying for money" movie, check out Black Widow, starring Debra Winger & Theresa Russell.

These movie is cheesiness at its best..! I just had to watch it entirely to see how it ended.


I got to watch this one without commercial interruption, and let me tell you, even for a TV movie it was pretty predictable. The actors did a workmanlike job with what they had, and the cast was pretty accomplished -- Barry Bostwick, Jane Seymour, Frances Fisher, etc. However, the script was not only predictable (except for the last scene), but the dialogue was treacly and sounded as if it was lifted from a third-rate romance novel. Jane Seymour's psychotic monologues were laughable. I'm sorry, but I find it hard to believe that anyone that creepy would arouse no suspicions whatsoever. As bad as Theresa Russell was in "Black Widow" -- and she sure stunk it up -- she at least had the sense to play her pseudo-characters somewhat straight. Seymour is a much better actress but didn't overcome the material here.

Lastly, the musical score is incredibly cheesy. It's almost a satire of its genre, like a Kenny G meltdown. A movie with such a lackluster and derivative script really should have gone for something edgier.


Debra Winger's 1987 "Black Widow" is MUCH better.

This is like a lame version, and Jane Seymour usually does better.

Chad Allen is pretty poor in this too. Just playing his usual role as a boring rebellious child.

Maybe the both of them being from Dr. Quinn was supposed to make us get excited.

If it's on, go grab a copy of "Black Widow".


I saw this film last night and came online specifically to see if others thought it was as awful as I did.

Granted, obviously some people see a lot in this film that I didn't, so if you're one of those people, fine - good luck to you. But I'm a patient person. I've enjoyed extremely long films before. But this was an exercise in torture for me.

I honestly felt that this was one of those films with little to say, and that it was more about style than substance - however, the style, too, made me feel like tearing my hair out. Pretty much anything interesting that happens during the course of the film happens OFF-SCREEN. It's like a deliberate attempt to make a film entirely from outtakes - the bits that would usually be reserved for the deleted scenes section of a DVD, if they were shown to the public at all.

You don't even get to find out, in the end, ANYTHING about the main character, Francois. I had no sympathy for any of the characters in this film, except perhaps the violinist & his goat, and the old man who believes that octopuses live to 300 because they're really smart. Seriously, I was excited when it cut to a shot of Francois holding a gun to his head. I felt so ripped off when even his inevitable suicide turned out to be gut-wrenchingly boring.

Oh, and where was the editor? Off smoking opium, too? I swear, I almost screamed every time I was subjected to an extended shot of absolutely nothing happening, except perhaps someone pacing backwards and forwards, and then FINALLY there would be a very abrupt cut to the next scene, and it would be A YEAR LATER, and WE'D MISSED EVERYTHING INTERESTING THAT HAPPENED IN THE MEANTIME, and everyone was STILL wearing the SAME BLOODY CLOTHES....!?!?!???

So, in conclusion, if you liked it - great. But this review is intended as an antidote to the fawning "you'll love this film if you love cinema" dross I've seen posted here and elsewhere. (See? I hated the film and I STILL included a sly winking reference to its content!)


Well , of course everybody is entitled to have an opinion about a thing ...everything. The presentation was interesting : black and white movie , the year 1968 , students manifestations , general strike , youth , ideals, love.....etc. Sorry but I did not sense LOVE , ROMANCE . A lover who is all right that his girlfriend sleeps with no matter who ? That is love ? But not only that , the movie is very long and for no reason , I had to stop watching the movie several time because I simply lost interest. I waited for something to happen but .......NOTHING. The only thing I was impressed during the movie : Gypsy fiddler playing in the streets , yes that was nice. I do not think that art should be complicated , encrypted , hidden in secret meanings , confusing .Big disappointment and waste of time !


This is clearly a French film. It is about young group of idealist/revolutionary/anarchistic people. It moves very slowly. Long takes. LOng closeups. A minute or more devoted to an attempt to light a pipe full of hash/opium. A long take on how a group overturns a car and burns it. It is a black and white film. The subtitles were white, so about a third of the time they were unreadable. (Why do they do this?) I walked out after about an hour and three quarters when it became clear that this picture was going nowhere, slow. I was not the first to walk out. It was the first time I walked out of a picture in my long lifetime. (Well, maybe the second.)


I saw this at the Toronto Inter. Film Festival in Sept. 2005. The description seemed intriguing--how wrong I was! This could easily be the worst movie I have ever seen--in 50 years! I see the director is my age (b. 1948) and lived with Nico of the Velvet Underground, which leads us to Andy Warhol, which coincidently is the one I thought of while watching this--Warhol's 24+ hour movies of nothing much happening. This is not art, this is boredom.

Specifically: black & white. OK, maybe...but what is the purpose here? Surely they had color in 1968! And there is no contrast with the present. And yes, the subtitles were in white, naturally. I don't think I missed much, but that made about 20% of them illegible.

Next, it's pure chronological order, but with seemingly random events thrown in. What's the purpose of the conversation with the old man at the dinner table? It adds nothing to the movie. There were many similar scenes--almost like someone took a camcorder and filmed random people and spliced them together to make a movie.

Plot? None. The "riot" consists of some figures in the distance occasionally heaving a rock off screen. Mostly it's an excruciating length of time watching people (in the distance!) stand around. The repetitive opium smoking is just as boring. When the main character got a cute girlfriend, I perked up, but no, she was boring too! This is perhaps the only French film I've seen where no one takes off their clothes. Probably they were too bored to bother.

Romance? None. The girl seems totally indifferent to everything--maybe her sculpture holds some interest, but if it does, we're not shown that. We are completely indifferent to the fate of the characters because they are all unappealing. Maybe that's the point of all this?


I caught this film late at night on HBO. Talk about wooden acting, unbelievable plot, et al. Very little going in its favor. Skip it.


"The Patriot" staring Steven Segal is a late 90's thriller/action movie that is not really a thriller and not really an action movie; rather it is Steven Segal playing Steven Segal by another name, but this time he is a Native American country doctor who kicks butt every now an again. Baring the obvious plot line holes, the movie itself is absolutely amazing in terms of the blatant disregard for character devolvement.

From a marketing standpoint, I was left asking myself, "who in the world were they aiming at?" The bio-thriller plot-line is way off the mark for the middle America crowd and Segal as silk cowboy would never sell to anyone even if you deep fried him and put him between a kripsy-cream donut. The whole movie is just way out there, even for Segal fans, because it simply does not deliver on any level.


The Patriot (nothing to do with the Mel Gibson film of the same name) came out Steven Seagal was still doing that 'saving the environment' thing in his movies. Which is fine. But it doesn't make for good action.

When the plot(?) of this film finally kicked in I saw the twist(?) coming a mile off. Seagal's anti-warfare, care-for-mother-nature stance is not very subtle. For a film that was originally going to debut in the cinemas it is shot very much like a TV movie despite some wonderful shots of the country by Dean Semler, the photographer of Dances with Wolves.

Steven Seagal does like 1 fight scene in the entire film and it's totally boring. As an action film it fails, as a drama it stinks, as an environmental message it's obvious. Avoid like Ebola crossed with plague.


Steven Seagal's intent is to be commended, and his acting in this film is equal to that in many of his others, if you ignore the fact that he is supposedly portraying a brilliant scientist. The problem I had was with two items of the plot, which stretched my suspension of disbelief beyond the breaking point.

First, how is it that a carefully engineered variation on a nasty germ, whose antidote must be just as carefully researched and engineered by a big lab, is cured by drinking tea from a flower growing high in the mountains? and that Grandpa's family seem to be about the only people who know anything about this?

Second, and this one really takes the cake: Having gathered up enough of the cure to fix a whole town, wouldn't you expect the army to land the helicopter and start rushing bags of flowers to all the homes in this small town? No, they instead decide to sprinkle the flowers all over the town and force the sick people to go out and gather them up all over again. Just plain silly, unless under Native belief the power in the drug somehow depends on one's having gone out and gathered the flowers oneself.

Add in the cardboard nature of the villains and the unsuitability of the title, and you might think my vote on this movie is actually high.


This is a known fact, Mr. Seagal cannot smile, he can act, he can kick butt, there are faint smiles, no real smiles no laughing out loud and no real point of watching this confusing movie. We see an over weight Mr. Seagal as Dr. Wesley Maclaren, who is in desperate need of a haircut and his real daughter Ayako made an appearance as his office assistant. Story: Okay so Wesley lives in another darn outback with his sweet daughter Holly. They sit and enjoy their red flower tea and omelettes and on the other end of town some over weight militia leader decides to make the whole town sick by spreading a virus that travels by air and kills in a matter of 2 days thinking he can survive as he had an antidote. Problem, there is no antidote and the one that exists only holds back the virus for a while. The CIA are contacted and even they can't help and only one person isn't ill, Wesley's daughter Holly. So she gets hunted thinking the cure is in her blood. Wesley manages to grab his daughter and take her to her grandfather, who is a native indian. Together with his sister in law Ann they go to a base where there is a hidden lab to find a cure but even the soldiers there are dying slowly and so will others if they don't find a cure in time. And to shorten the moment, neither Ann or Wesley are infected by the virus...hmm. One weak fight scene. Terrible movie and all the men in it are in desperate need of a stair master.


You get a good portion of Steven Seagal environmental anxieties, and some breathless mountain views along with cow-boy scenes (or alternatively use parts of any remains of the HORSE WHISPERER). You then add a large piece of OUTBREAK virus or similar (attention it must be more lethal and at least Biohazard Level 4) wrapped around a fat Militia group leader. You add one teaspoon of martial arts, and a zip of explosions and gunfire for the taste. Add the classic red Indian herbs for the extra taste. Serve immediately.

What is the name of the film you get ?: The Patriot. Perhaps the worst film of Steven Seagal. I am sure that Seagal tried to say something in this film except the usual I-am-a-cook (but-also-an-ex-seal) but his recipe was confusing and the taste was awful.


[POSSIBLE SPOILER ALERT]

It's unlikely that Seagal will ever again scale the heights of lousitude he did with *On Deadly Ground* (mainly because no one's ever going to let him direct again), but he sure tries, don't he?

This one's a typically brainless and badly-written little fantasy about how Indian folk remedies are much more effective than Western medicine. Seagal seems to actually believe this nonsense, although he never explains why life expectancy in the Americas and Europe is so much higher than it was in 1492.

Kinda like he never explains how his supposed "water-fueled engines" work in *On Deadly Ground*.

Even the "action" in this one sucks.


Forget the fact that most people expect an action movie form Seagal. This movie simply had no substance. Very long, drawn out, and boring. Scenes were much longer than they had to be - the camera would often focus on something for long periods of time when absolutely nothing was happening. Cure for insomnia. Worst Seagal movie by far (I do like some of his other movies). 1/10


Seagal was way off the mark with this film. I'm a fan of his and come to expect cool fight scenes and sharp one liners but this film had none of this, instead it had injections and cheesy music. Even if you're a fan of his i strongly recommend you keep away from this film and watch under siege or even on deadly ground instead.


Since I am not a big Steven Seagal fan, I thought this was a pretty good movie. It is apparent that his fans are very displeased with this drama that lacks an over abundance of martial arts and brute force.

Gailard Sartain plays a self claimed patriot leader of a militia in a standoff with the ATF for weapons violations. He surrenders with the intentions of releasing a deadly virus. Seagal is a former CIA agent turned country doctor that pressures himself to find the antidote for the lethal bug that has incapacitated a small town. His Grandpa's Native American herbal remedy figures into the salvation.

Notable appearances by L.Q. Jones, Camilla Belle and Silas Weir Mitchell. My personal favorite in this movie is Whitney Yellow Robe. She is stunning and appears to have what it takes to take on a more challenging role.

Despite the far fetched ending, this was a decent movie that could have used a lot more action.


This film is without a doubt the worst action film I have ever seen. I am sorry, but it is just pathetic. In fact, the best part of the movie (this movie is supposed to be a serious one) is when a chicken speeds across the road, on foot, at about 100 miles per hour. This pathetic editing mistake makes the film absolutely hilarious for approximately 2 seconds, then it is back to "non stop, on the edge of your seat, as you try to find a comfortable position to sleep in, action!"


Steven Seagal has made a really dull, bad and boring movie. Steven Seagal plays a doctor!!!!!!???! This movie has got a few action-scenes but they are poorly directed and have nothing to do with the rest of the movie. A group of American Nazis spread a lethal virus, which is able to wipe out the state of Montana. Wesley(Seagal`s character)tries desperately to find a cure, and that is the story of The Patriot. The Patriot is an extremely boring film, because nothing happens. It is filled with boring dialogue, and illogical gaps between events, and stupid actors. Steven Seagal has totally scre#¤d up in this movie, and I would not recommend this guff to my worst enemy. 3/10


Apart from some quite stunning scenery, this Steven Seagal vehicle is devoid of reasons to spend any time watching it. For a Seagal movie it has very little (almost no) action but he does put in some reasonable (for him) acting in contrived character development scenes. Not recommended. To anyone.


Wow, I haven't seen a movie this bad since "Fire Down Below". Wait, that's a Seagal movie too. Like "On Deadly Ground" and "Fire Down Below", Seagal centers the movie around his environmental awareness message and how the military, FBI, and CIA are incompetent idiots. Problem is that both reality and a sensible plot are secondary to whatever gobbleygook social commentary Seagal is trying to get across.


The most stupid of Seagal's movies I've ever seen. The final scene is just crescendo of stupidity. My recommendation - if you really like Steeve Seagal's movies, NEVER , NEVER rent or buy this one - do not repeat my mistake and keep a good impression of him, which I've lost


Dr Steven Segal saves the world from a deadly virus outbreak. This movie strikes me as foolish earnestness that has morphed into an unintended camp classic (the best kind). Memorable lines include "Knowledge is like a deer. Chase it, and it will run away from you" and "Drink this. It will make you feel better." It is so sublimely bad -- they couldn't have made it any worse if they tried.

Segal tries to convince you that he is 1. sensitive -- by saving a stricken pony; 2. a good father -- by a saccharine cooking scene for his daughter; 3. a man of science -- by looking at a fake spectrum; 4. in tune with nature -- by using homeopathic remedies; 5. politically correct and multicultural -- by having Indian friends; 6. an iconoclast -- by opening a rural practice after a former life in a national research lab; and 7. an action hero -- by being really fat but yet can still fight. ROTFL.

It's good to see on as a late-night Saturday flick, with friends, preferably (but not necessarily!) inebriated.


I discovered "The Patriot" in a DVD-store and thought it could be a real action thriller. No, it´s instead a low budget movie with a ridiculous story. It´s no doubt a cable-movie and not one for the theatre. Fortunately after 90 minutes the movie stops otherwise the audience should have taken an anti-virus against sleep. One thing came over: it was the nice country the film has been shot. You can really feel the American air but that´s all. I hope for Steven Seagal that he finally succeeds in a big hit. It is not a must see because I and my wife voted average 4/10.


I don't know about the rest of the viewers of this movie but personally I'm dead sick and tired of Steven Seagal films. When Above the Law came out, it was a great action film. Wahoo. Now in the Patriot, Steven Seagal plays Steven Seagal from Above the Law. I get tired of seeing no character changes. It's the same character, time after time, after time. He needs change. This movie was probably one of the worst action films I have ever seen. Calling it an action movie is giving it almost too much credit because there's too few action scenes and they're spread far apart throughout the film. I guess they wanted to go for some drama but it was a meaningless try as the film portrays nothing but the regular squinty-eyed-Steven-Seagal we've seen thousands of times over. Get a new look and lose the pony tail is all I have to say, I definitely do not recommend viewing this film in any form, go out to eat, heck, rent Barney goes to Vegas but do not under any circumstances rent this movie under the precept that Seagal will make a great performance.


Okay, some other people have commented that this isn't an action flick, so I don't need to rehash that (even though I just did). This isn't exactly a let down, in fact, it's nice on occasion to see an actor try something different. But, unfortunately, this isn't one of those occasions.

Now, the story: non-existent. This film lacks in storyline almost as much as 'Showgirls' did. Sure, they throw in a couple environmentalist, no, not even environmentalist, something else, tidbits here and there to please Seagal (being that that's what he's into). This doesn't make a story, not even close. Now, the ending... Even those amongst us who actually liked this film... the ending, you have to admit it was a bit much, or a lot stupid.

Now, from what I understand this was a direct-to-video film (at least in the states), but this is even too good for this one. This piece of garbage should have been cable only, on TBS or Starz (late night).


Steven Seagal played in many action movies. Most of them were bad but not bad as The Patriot. This one is a Z-series action low-budget movie. After Operation Delta Force, Act of War, The Substitute 2, Plato's Run, The Base, Drive, Sabotage, etc comes The Patriot. Now Steven Seagal is sure to be considered as a bad actor like Mark Dacascos, Jean-Claude Van Damme, Treat Williams, Jack Scalia, Gary Busey, Chuck Norris, Michael Madsen and many others. The scenario was full of holes and the characters were not realistic (maybe because of the very bad actors) and the 4.25 bucks you spend by renting The Patriot are called Lost Money!!! I give it 0and a half( for laughs) out of 5.


Seems Sensei Seagal is getting more and more moralising and less "action packed". To date this has to be his worse movie... no action, a poor story line, an impossible plot and to make things worse, one of the CHEEZIEST endings I have ever seen.

Seagal films are like seeing a Dirty-Harry, you do not go see it for the great social causes or impeccable acting... you want a good action flick.

On a scale of 1 to 10, this one gets a 1...