In 1976 a mother named Norma Lewis (Cameron Diaz) lives with her son Walter and her husband Arthur (James Marsden). One night a box is placed on the doorstep of their home and the following morning they cut open the box to reveal a button device that must be opened with a key. By the late afternoon, a man with terrible scarring on his face comes to their door and presents Norma with an offer. This man is Arlington Steward (Frank Langella) and he announces that if they push the button someone in the world that the family does not know will die and they will receive a million dollars in cash. If they don't press it, nothing will happen and the offer will move on to someone else. Norma and Arthur are not allowed to tell anyone including their son about this deal. The incentive for the family to push the button is heightened by their financial difficulties. Arthur, who is currently working for NASA, fails to be accepted into a new job he applies for and Norma, who is a teacher, learns that her faculty funding is being cut.

One's enjoyment for this bizarre sci-fi thriller, based on the short story "Button Button" by Richard Matheson, will be determined by how far they are willing to take this ludicrous premise. The opening of the film is particularly problematic in grounding itself in a sense of realism with the household. Richard Kelly's previous film Donnie Darko cleverly used the condition of schizophrenia to justify its excursion into paranormal activity and parallel universes. Without the dream-like state of that far superior film, The Box and the very thought of a device that can kill anyone in the world, is entirely implausible. That Norma would also accept someone into her house that has almost the same scarring as Two-Face from The Dark Knight and believe this offer, seems equally contrived.

If this sounds unlikely so far, what follows is even more absurd, involving a conspiracy about someone who was struck by lightning, the possibility of alien life or some other Godly being influencing these situations. Scenes involving gateways opening up in public libraries, random nose bleeds and mindless drones stalking the Lewis family, become almost unintentionally comical in their absurdity. To a point, the film could be called intriguing purely to see where it is going. Kelly is occasionally clever in his ability to hold our attention through many of the films contrivances. In one scene Norma is teaching a class and then is asked by a strange boy about her foot. He taunts her about it as she is missing four of her toes. Later, at a rehearsal dinner for a wedding that Norma and Arthur are attending, this same student appears as a waiter and seems to be stalking them. Yet the eventual justification for these all of these oddities is wrapped up in a highly contrived sci-fi revelation that many will find implausible and difficult to swallow.

What is most disappointing about the film is that once the button is pressed surprisingly early on, many of the moral implications that were initially promised are diminished for much of pictures duration. The ending, which won't be spoilt here, resurfaces these moral questions again in the hope of echoing that of a Greek tragedy. While the resemblances can be seen, by this point, given the unlikelihood of so much of the film and the uneven performances, there is little reason to care. Cameron Diaz's Southern accent might be unnecessary but it is surprisingly Langella who is the most disappointing in the film, with a very unsubtly written role, as the mysterious scarred man, who seems to be hiding a military base that would make Dr. Evil proud. It really is just a shadow of his towering performance in Frost/Nixon. There is not a lot for many of the other actors in the film to do; in particular both Norma and Arthur could not be regarded as characters but mouthpieces for Kelly's pastiche of ideas. Underdeveloped and brief conversations, such as where Norma sympathises with Arlington over their deformities and also when Norma and Arthur question whether they really know each other in case the button kills either of them, highlights this.

Since 2001, Richard Kelly has failed to make a film that has lived up to the quality and the imagination of Donnie Darko. Though this film might be intriguing for a little while, it is too absurd and implausible to be fully enjoyed and it would certainly not warrant multiple viewings given the film's rather illogical revelations. Science fiction fans might be able to appreciate it somewhat more and draw their own conclusions, but what Kelly is really trying to say beneath the surface remains cryptic. The Box is one film this year that should have been shelved.


I know that so many reviews on IMDb are extreme, with reviewers either praising a film to the hilt or inarticulately tearing it to pieces. I find neither of these kind of reviews helpful, and so I do not give this film the awful review I am about to, lightly. The film is art-house science-fiction of the worst kind dressed up as a Hollywood blockbuster. The trailers draw you in by showing you what appears to be a cohesive plot, but is actually just a tiny part of a wilfully baffling series of events which are never properly resolved. I like films which challenge the viewer and I do not need to be spoon-fed a plot, and so my complaint against this film is not that it is too highbrow. No - the film is just terrible. As the credits roll you will feel genuine anger at having wasted your time on Cameron Diaz's wooden acting and a faltering plot-line. Avoid.


Be warned, the next time you see "Richard Kelly" involved in any production, run away. Fast.

Kelly proved to the world after his last movie, "Southland Tales", that he is one pretentious director. It was indulgent and convoluted. In "The Box", not much has changed.

I can picture what his pitch to Warner Bros must have been, and I bet the executives at the studio ate it right up: a full-feature film based on one of Richard "Twilight Zone" Matheson's old short stories.

Big mistake! Do not read any further unless you want this movie COMPLETELY spoiled for you:

Norma (Cameron Diaz) pushes the button.

Turns out that Arlington Steward (Frank Langella) has an Alien using his body as a vessel to conduct "experiments" in which the fate of mankind rests. His face is scarred because he was struck by Alien lightening, which killed him, but then brought him back to life to do all of this red button testing. Obviously since Norma pushes the button, knowing full well that someone may die, she must suffer the consequences for failing to consider someone else's life instead of her own. In the end she and her husband (James Marsden) choose to kill Norma instead of having their son grow up deaf and blind.

Kelly dances around his film's "message", trying to make the audience figure out what the moral of the story is. Obviously, any person with a brain is saying at the beginning, "What if I was the person who dies?". Richard Kelly doesn't even let his character's have this normal, HUMAN conversation. In fact, they avoid it all together. They appear to both be educated, working at a prestigious school and also for NASA, so why wouldn't they both have a better ability to LOOK OUTSIDE OF THE BOX???

If he had the main characters actually have this conversation, the entire movie could have ended right there! Instead, we have to watch weddings go on forever, NASA and the NSA be complacent to Arlington Stewart taking over these government programs, teleportation to show Marsden life beyond our world so it will be "easier" to kill his wife, and drone's controlled by Steward which can be anywhere and nowhere, at any time.

The most painful part of this movie is the pacing. Nothing really happens. Its a muddled mish-mash of ideas that are laughable.

It is insufferable how this film is being marketed. The commercials make it look like "Saw" and even use the music from those films to sell it. In reality what you get is a slow, dull, laughable (yes, half the theater was laughing at the acting and visual effects), and messy film which is neither imaginative, interesting, nor cohesive. At one point, Cameron Diaz and her son are abducted and then suddenly, she is back in the NSA's big black car with her husband on the way home. Where did she go? Why did they take her? Do we really care? Not anymore you won't.

By the end you really won't care what happens to any of the characters. You will be rooting for all of them to die so the film will just end. Go see anything else that's playing. Don't waste your time, or money.


Ha ha. - oh no - what to say about this film? Yes - green eggs and ham makes more sense than this movie. Where does one start? A lot of the good stuff has already been said - so I won't divulge into the same territory. I believe you already have the movie summary - so I won't paraphrase the movie.

First - let's start the with good.

1). If you like psychological thrillers that make you think (as I do) the first 29 minutes of this film will be for you - this is one of those films that illustrates the question that you always talked about on long car drives when you were kids like (what if you had to chose one family member live, another to die, or, what if you had to die by drowning or fire) This movie is a great concept - bottom line.

2) The wardrobe group did a fine job with bringing us back to the 70's. Realistically though, how difficult is that to accomplish? .....Okay, that's about all for the good. Let's talk about the bad.

1). This movie feels like a 2 hour "Twilight Zone" episode. This could easily be 90 minutes. That might have made the movie tolerable.

2). Do you remember in the movie "From Dusk til Dawn?". The movie started out interesting, then halfway through the movie it just took a degrading turn? Yep - same thing here. I would venture to say that the writers started with a concept, then had no idea what to do with it. I've gotten deeper thought provocation out of Transformers 2.

3). Yes - we get the dilemma in the film. We understand the philosophical undertones and Utilitarian approach - but the story jumped around way too much, didn't elaborate on the current story arc, and took a(forgive me)completely insulting direction.

4). The ending didn't make sense. Not at all. None.

This movie would make a great term paper in college philosophy 101. If you're board out of your mind, in bed sick, or have ever enjoyed being hit in the face with a pie, and can view this free on-line - by all means, go for it.

If you need to pay anything to view this movie, don't waste your time - you're better off watching old Howie Mandel stand-up on You Tube. You will get more philosophical stimulation reorganizing your sock drawer.


Before you dismiss my post as "not getting it", let me say...I'm one of the biggest Richard Kelly and "The Twilight Zone" fans out there. Donnie Darko is one my all-time favorites and I even thought Southland Tales had it's moments. I'm a HUGE sci-fi fan. I was very excited to see "The Box", couldn't wait for it to come out.

Having said that..."The Box" is terrible. Behind "Drag Me To Hell", this was the worst movie I've seen in 2009. And it just simply WILL NOT end! Whenever you think you've reached the end, another change in the plot and you're off to more torture. I was actually groaning in the theater by the end of the film...I could hardly take it anymore.

The biggest problem with "The Box", no matter how you slice it or try to justify it, is that it simply makes little sense. Trust me, I "got it", I understood what was going on. But that doesn't mean it makes a lot of sense looking back on it. Take the basics for example. The main couple...Cameron Diaz and James Marsden, playing Norma and Arthur Lewis. Diaz loses her finances at her job, then bemoans to her husband that they are "living paycheck to paycheck". Well, sell that f-ing Porsche your husband is driving then!!! They live in a beautiful 2-story house in a nice subdivision. Marsden is working what seems to be a high-paid job at NASA and Diaz is an accomplished teacher. And, yes, Marsden drives an overly expensive car. But they are somehow living paycheck to paycheck?!? No need to press the button, just cut down your high-priced lifestyle a bit! The movie would have worked better if they showed the couple jobless and in serious debt. Instead, they are seemingly desperate for money...all the while living what I would call a luxurious lifestyle. Like I said...you can understand what's going on, yet it still makes little sense! That's a rare combination.

There was an awful scene in a library that I feel will go down as one of the worst segments in movie history (terribly acted too by the way). It was idiotic, illogical and out of place. I can't even begin to fully describe it actually, so I will move onto a subplot that involves nose-bleeds and body possession by aliens. (Yes, I'm being serious unfortunately). A kid is in Diaz's class with a wicked and smile on his face (a sinister smile that seemingly goes by completely unnoticed by everyone in authority at the school). He starts asking Diaz personal questions, literally embarrassing her in front of her class. No punishment is given to the kid whatsoever...he didn't even get asked to stay after class for a talk! Then Diaz is at a party...and the same kid is one of the hired help...ironed shirt, apron and all! I don't know many alien-possessed kids (who appear to be in Junior High) that also moonlight as a bus-boy at parties sponsored by teachers and school officials...but we found one here! (See what I mean...you can understand it completely, but it still makes no sense...a rare combo!) Like many things in the movie, the kid comes and goes...no real explanation about him, no ending to his character. Moving on... A lady then approaches Diaz in a grocery store, telling her that experiments are being ran secretly and her family is one of the test subjects. Well...hmmm...if aliens possess the powers where they can take over a body remotely...and the aliens don't want to help Diaz...then who was taking over this lady's body and giving Diaz advice?! Again...The lady was trying to help Diaz...and the aliens weren't interested in helping Diaz...so who the hell was controlling her body?! Never explained. Never talked about again. No nothing!! It goes on and on and on like this for, what seemed to me like, 2 weeks. It would not end! I wonder if this movie underwent a massive re-shoot at some point. It was poorly edited. Diaz's accent was there one minute, gone the next. Sub-plots began but never ended. The numerous push-backs of the release date obviously shows the problems the producers had with the finished product. It's truly a train-wreck.

Pass on this one...there's no redeeming value in it whatsoever. 3 out of 10, just because I like Diaz and sci-fi! But it probably deserves a 1 out of 10.

Thanks for reading!

JD


THE BOX (2009) * Cameron Diaz, James Marsden, Frank Langella, James Rebhorn, Holmes Osborne, Sam Oz Stone, Celia Weston. Truly disappointing adaptation of genre legend Richard Matheson's sci-fi chiller "Button, Button" by on the wane wunderkind filmmaker Richard Kelly who truly stretches a small, well-crafted piece into a grab-bag 'WTF'-a-thon! Mysterious (and ridiculously maimed!) man, Langella, posits a million dollar offer to 'struggling' couple Diaz and Marsden (both surprisingly vanilla bland to the hilt!): a box with a red-button, that when pushed, will kill some stranger in the world (!) Sure strings are attached but does that really matter here? What does is why in the name of God does Kelly trowel on so much oddness (i.e. nose-bleeds; watery transport systems  that's right  Watery.Transport.Systems) when the tension should be strung as tautly as possible (oh the possibilities). If this sounds like a bad TWILIGHT ZONE episode you are half right (the '80s TV re-boot actually did a decent small-screen adaptation; in fact rent that instead!) One of the year's worst films.


First time I ever felt I needed to write a review.

I have seen thousands of movies in my life and I like a wide range of movies. I am reasonably opened minded, and can easily say I enjoyed a movie while still saying "yeah it was not good but I enjoyed it". I can appreciate the mastery of great movies like The Shaw shank redemption, the godfather, and American history X. I can like good movies in a genre like horror, or comedy, even if the movie might not be that great. I can even enjoy a bad movie that just happens to entertain me (Bloodsport). I also will try to rate movie fairly even if I did not like it. City lights by Charlie Chapin was not a movie I enjoyed, but I can appreciate the acting and story lines for the time.

I think some people when they go on this site instead of randomly click a rating, should take a few ideas into account. Try to rate the movie based on how good it actually was. Do not let your personal bias affect the rating. Also look at other moves you rated and compare the movie you are going to rate.

This "movie" was the worst piece of trash I have ever seen. 2 hours of my life where just stolen. The acting was awful, across the board. The scenes where choppy at best. However the real disgrace was the story. The first 20 minutes we actually had a story that tried to make sense and take the viewer from point A to B. However after that it was a nightmare. They kept trying to add new elements but nothing was every explained. Nothing really ever made sense, was steward dead, is he alive, did he hit by lighting, was it really lighting, was it aliens, is he an alien, etc. The ending tied nothing together and really did not answer any questions. The only positive was nobody cared we where just happy to leave the theater.

6.5/10??? What is wrong with some of you? I will admit that the 8 of us where so mad about seeing this, we did think "what would make it better?", and we decide to tell a few of our friends that this movie was good so they would have to suffer and see this movie. What can I say misery loves company. That is really the only reason I can see for a 6.5 rating.

Do not waste your life!


i thought id check this film out as I'm currently making a film about a mysterious box, therefore it would be great to see how this film took and developed the idea of a mysterious and unexpected box.

before going to the cinema i had a high expectation of this film. with actresses, like Cameron diaz you would expect the acting especially hers to be great. the acting was a sort of let down for the film, the characters accents changed throughout the film it made it unbelievable.

the whole idea of a weird box that can make your dreams come true but destroy others is such a brilliant story but i feel the director let it down, this film had potential it could of been a lot lot better than it was.

this film had no middle to it. it was too confusing and needed a steady storyline. nobody wants to go into the cinema and come out thinking what have i just watched 'i didn't get it at all,' sometimes it can be exciting and make people want to watch it again, but this film made people want to never ever want to hear of the film again. throughout watching i noticed that half the audience had left before the ending. i feel every single person had been let down watching this film because of the high expectations and how slow parts of the film was.

lets put the bad points to one side... i did like however the scene where the son is in the bathroom at the end. it was unexpected, it reminded me of a horror movie and the way it was put together made me imagine it and how devastating and scary it would of been to be in that position. the lighting and the effects made it look excellent, this scene looked slightly more 1990's than the 1970's that this film is supposed to be.

this film was confusing because it had so many different bits to it. parts that you would expect to be sumned up at the end where everything comes clear but it didn't, it totally went against an audiences expectations, even though leaving the film on a cliff hanger, not giving the audience a reason why things happen could work and do really well, but this one didn't, it was a creative, different unusual film i thought, it had potential could of been better, disappointed didn't enjoy it, wouldn't buy it on DVD to be honest.


Couple having financial trouble gets a box delivered to their door. If they push the button they get a million dollars but someone they don't know will die. Do they push the button?

This is an odd film based on a Richard Matheson short story has a few chills but mostly is a messy affair. The trouble is that there is so much going on it feels as though writer director Richard Kelly didn't know what sort of movie he was making. Is this a straight out horror film with supernatural overtones? At times it seems like it with talk of moral choices, damnation and the afterlife. Is it a science fiction film? Possibly, there are lots of questions about that Mars project. And what are the strange looks that people seem to have as if in some grand conspiracy? Is this Invasion of the Body Snatchers or a demonic take over film? Don't know, maybe. And that's the problem there are lots of questions, most of them intriguing, but there are too many. Little seems to have been explained and when we get to the end of the film things seem more to stop then to conclude (even in an open ended way). I'm all for making a film rich with themes and points but writer Kelly fills his script with simply too many that director Kelly can't handle, or does so in such away that each theme or plot thread gets its ten minutes of screen time and for those minutes it hold court before its cast off the next bit. It made me crazy. (I won't get into the two leads, Cameron Diaz and James Marsden, who aren't very good or more likely don't know what to make of the material which is so ever shifting )

It's a heady mix that doesn't work (there are ultimately too many holes). I got to the end and suddenly realized I had no idea what I just saw. I really didn't like it, but its more in a this isn't good because it just misses sort of a way rather. I'd take a pass or wait for cable where its not going to cost you anything


Now, this movie is the worst i have ever seen!! It is simply a disaster. I think it's really a sick movie, i just wasted my time watching this cheap crap. I can't believe anyone would produce such a disaster. Such a waste of money and time. Nothing to learn from this movie, it's just a hollow sick evil flick. I don't think they could've make it worse, this movie just earned it's title as the king of lowest crap. The acting is a disaster, the meaning...oh well there is no meaning just a sick pain and sorrow introduced by the suffering child in the end of the movie, and the killing of the wife which again was another dumb blow to this movie. Do yourself a favor, if you actually have some self respect, keep away from this awfulness!!!


I like to like movies, but I found nothing to like about The Box. I was interested in the 'hook' of the plot, but unfortunately it never went anywhere and was impossible to follow. Anyone who states that they understand this movie is probably faking it so that they can feel like they are a part of something, well I have news for them, the emperor has no clothes.

The only undertone in this movie is that women are to blame for original sin, and corrupting mankind. I've heard that story before, and it makes less and less sense every time. It's true that this movie is different than a lot of films currently showing in theatres, but that doesn't make it worth the ticket price.


quite possibly one of (if not the) worst film ever conceived, cast and acted in the history of cinema. Who on God's green earth would ever think to cast Cameron Diaz and James Mardsen as a couple? She looked like his mother. God forgive me but I am just being honest. And that was the least of the many problems plaguing this horrible excuse for a film. It was a horrible statement against women but at least if you're gonna blame women for the problems of the world, tell a decent story not one with so many annoying loop holes and pathetic excuses for suspense and thrills. Everybody should get their money back who went to see it in theaters or bought the DVD.


This is my first review on IMDb.com and probably first ever written review of a film I've done of my own accord - not for some class assignment. I think that fact alone says something about this movie... not a good thing! I am no seasoned journalist or critic (though I have seen my fair share of movies), but I found this particular film so terribly painful to watch, it was necessary for my own peace of mind to vent about the experience. Where better to do it than IMDb? As I forced myself to sit through the movie, physically writhing from the inability to connect-the-dots, I was sure there would be some "light at the end of the tunnel" - a revelation to explain what in samhe.-.ll was going on. The movie ended and I was as enlightened as dog****. After several rewinds to review certain scenes I still could conclude nothing sensible. I found myself wanting to yell "Does this make sense to anybody?" I would recommend to not waste your time, but then again if I were you I'd probably want to experience it myself. If that's the case, bring a crossword puzzle or something so you don't get bored.


Cameron Diaz, James Marsden, Frank Langella: that's an all-star power cast but "The Box" proves once again that it is not a guarantee for a solid movie. The premise sounds promising: a couple gets a visit from a mysterious person who offers them a million dollar. The downside is that someone will die, a person they probably will not know. So What Do You Do ? This gives us an interesting story for about 30 minutes. After that, the story derails completely. Vague an uninspired plot lines about an alien conspiracy involving the NASA, nothing really is explained here.

"The Box" is a disappointment, could have been so much better. But since it is based on an ultra short story, that explains the continuity errors.


"Don't be greedy" sums up the depth of this movie. All the rest of the baloney is big budget window dressing. The movie rotates through hiding the ball annoyingly and revealing too much. None of the potentially interesting plot tangents are developed yet the trite ones are hashed and rehashed to excess.

The charm of DD, as others have pointed out, was in the schizophrenia device,the humor woven into the fabric of the movie, and most importantly, the acting. There is enough wooden acting in The Box to attract a giant mound of martian termites.

The biggest problem with suspending disbelief during this mess is the glaring question, "why would a technologically superior power capable of taking over the government need to do any testing at all?" Awful failure of a movie.


First of all. Should Cameron Diaz ever be allowed to act again? To call that a bad performance would be an insult to bad performances. That was a historically horrific performance. Any small chance that Diaz had at being a serious actress is now completely done after that. Laughably horrible.

Two, the movie was extremely boring, and not very thought provoking at all. I can sit around and ponder human nature without having to watch terrible actors, play out a terrible story.

Third, there was not a single likable character, and even worse, it seemed like that was done by design. You were not supposed to like, or feel sympathy for any character. It was quite effective. I wanted them all to just die to be honest. Aliens included. Kid included. Everyone was just one big mope in this movie. Everyone literally just moped around, and they called it a movie. You could barely distinguish the zombie "employees," with regular people, because they all seemed like zombies.

Lastly, nothing really makes sense. From the characters reactions and emotions, to the literal story line, it all just seems random. This is just a really bad movie, disguised and couched as a "thinking mans movie," which is meant to be confusing. Give me a break. A bad movie is a bad movie. And this movie was bad.


How truly sad that this sprung from the same mind as Donnie Darko, possibly one of the best films in this genre. Where do I even begin? I think one of the must infuriating aspects of the film is that we are supposed to be critiquing humanity, and yet we see no humanity in the film. No more than 5 minutes of the film is spend agonizing about the possible death of another human. These are horrible one dimensional cardboard cutouts of human beings. Sadly, that's how they are played with what can only be described as dreadful acting. Is this truly how Kelly sees humanity? Judging from the reaction of viewers, this is a horrible encapsulation of humanity. Why don't the characters in the film ask the questions that all the viewers have? This is not an indictment of humanity. It's an indictment of the straw men that Kelly sets up who bare almost no resemblance to real humans in this situation.

To those who say this was a wonderful thought-provoking film, to what are you comparing it? Armageddon? I even saw someone compare this to the works of Kurosawa. How truly deprived must you be to think that this would promote good existential discussion? For the love of all that's good in film! Even Indecent Proposal is ten times the indictment of humanity that this is. There we see people truly agonizing about greed and the human condition. Yes, even Indecent Proposal puts this film to shame for philosophical discussion and yet it gets 5.3 vs 6.0 for this mindless tripe.

Rarely have I seen a more pretentious, pontificating, and self aggrandizing, film fall so flatly on its face. This has the depth of a high school film project, and a poor one at that. Truly, that's about the level of the discussion promoted by this film. If you want to see GOOD psychological film making, do yourself a favor and check out Das Experiment. If The Box had lived up even to this one goal, I would have been willing to forgive some of the atrocious acting, gaping plot holes, and sheer nonsensical storyline. Sadly, it can't even do that.

The true indictment of humanity is that there are people out there who think this film is a deeply delving introspective look into the human condition. This is not Sartre! This is not even the Cliff Notes version of Sartre! This is a hastily conceived and hack-written 9th grade term paper on Sartre based on some internet message board ramblings. If Sartre were alive, he would sue Kelly for defamation.


The Box is a film with great potential, but the makers totally misused that potential. The film seemed to take for ever, because of the boring family dinners and scenes about school and job-dialogs between the action. Those scenes could and must be deleted in my opinion to keep up the tensity and thrill. The philosophy of human free will has potential and seems to referring to the philosophy of Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679), but we find ourselves regretfully struck with magic and nosebleeds, were even Harry Potter would flunked his class with!

Probably the best part was that moment when Norma Lewis (Cameron Diaz)has been shot to death, by her loving and caring husband as an act of human free will. I wonder how Hobbes would react if he could...


This is a flic that you can safely avoid. childish plot and poor acting from Cameron (she really shouldn't take on these serious roles - they don't suit her)Besides she looks most unglamorous, Lets face it, shes' great in Charlies Angels and She was superb in There's Something about Mary... The Pope wouldn't be a good President of the USA and vice versa, my point being that there are some actors/actresses who are suited to a particular type of character and Cameron is most unsuited for this serious housewife type - there are a dozen other actress' would have done a far better job. The movie itself is rather unbelievable and juvenile in its plot (did I spell Juvinile right??) I noticed a comment from another reviewer who has given The Box a 10 rating, who was derisive in his comments on other reviewers who gave the movie a 1 or 2 rating and couldn't spell. I mean whats spelling got to do with a movie review? Does he mean that persons who spell perfectly could appreciate this movie more that the ones who couldn't? C'mon 'professor.


Oddly, I have very little to say about "The Box" so this will be pretty brief. I have never read the Richard Matheson novella "Button, Button" from which the film is based, but considering what I saw in this "adaptation", there couldn't have been much semblance to such a legendary author's work. "The Box" is about a family who discover a strange contraption on their doorstep that has a button on it. Frank Langella shows up and explains how they will be given one million dollars if they push the button - the only 'catch' is that it will automatically kill someone, somewhere... ??SPOILER?? They push it ??END OF SPOILERS?? That whole concept was interesting on its own, but somehow they managed to extend the movie into some convoluted Stargate knock-off that pads it out until a pretty decent ending with a pretty profound message. While I'm trying to be as 'fair' as possible, I still must say that this was not my cup of tea and it bored me severely. I guess its from the same director as "Donnie Darko" which I remember liking when I saw it years ago. "The Box" would've worked well as a short film, but since it was so lifelessly adapted this way, I can't come close to recommending it...


Maybe if you smoked enough weed this would seem funny or would make you nostalgic for how completely unhinged people allowed themselves to be in the early 70's. There's an odd innocence to this movie and the sex is a lot more awkward and playful than the steely pros who do it for the cameras now.

The real curio here - and really the only reason to watch this movie - is the appearance of Kristine Debell as Alice. She was a Ford model and it shows. She's got classic, WASP-ish good looks - like a really cute Ivy League sorority girl. So what the hell is she doing in this cheap, cheesy skin flick? From my vantage point she does not appear to be at all on drugs in this movie (which might explain it) and she actually seems incredibly committed to the part. When she sings her first song she really does act like she thinks she's flippin' Julie Andrews or something. I just get the feeling that this girl truly believed this was gonna be her big break or something, instead of the near career killer that it was. Anyway, she is damn cute and you kind of can't believe she would even get naked on screen, much less do a masturbation scene, a couple of oral sex scenes (with men and women) and then do the real deal as a climax to the film (snark). It is also definitely not a body double at all. That is our little Kristine taking one for the team, or for the greater glory of showbiz or something. It's pretty amazing to watch and it is definitely stimulating (ahem) but in a way I kinda wish she hadn't done it. That was a very pretty, talented young girl getting some really bad advice.

Anyway, my guess is that Kristine Debell, wherever she is, has long, long since wished this movie would go away. She was very cute and appealing in "Meatballs." Almost impossible to believe this is the same girl - but it is.


I don't understand why so many of the comments here seem to indicate that this is acceptable entertainment. The eye-popping horror of this cinematic monstrosity cannot be overstated. Me and my girlfriend just watched it together, and I'm not sure we'll ever be able to have sex again. I'm not sure what was worse, the scrawny, unattractive cast, their supremely unphotogenic genitals, the rancid attempts at humor, the screeching noises that claimed to be songs...

No, I know what was worst of all. The girls in the green leotards, with green facepaint, licking Alice to dry her off, then proposing, in broken childlike speech, that they suckle milk from her breasts. That was the worst.

Also, what was with the nurses, and why do they seem to have so much trouble finding each other's vaginas? Why are all the male actors gay? Why does Humpty Dumpty waggle a dildo in the air and pretend that it's his penis? Why did my eyes have to see this? There are no words.


I was greatly disappointed by the quality of this documentary. The content is poorly produced, very poor quality video and, especially awful audio. There's extremely little about how Bruce Haack produced his music and virtually no examples of direct connection to later and contemporary electronic music. The interviews of people who knew Bruce Haack are ad-hoc mostly inarticulate mumbo-jumbo. Too much yak and not enough Haack. Although I have a serious personal interest in electronic music and have a higher than average attention span, even for slow and/or difficult subject matter, I fell asleep while watching this documentary and had to review it to see the parts I slept through. If you watch this, make sure that you are set up, before viewing, like Alex in A Clockwork Orange. Bruce Haack deserves much better than this. Shame on the producer and director.


I'm Mike Sedlak. I co-wrote the score for this movie. And proud of it.

And I love all of the comments. Some have not gone far enough.

The movie premiered in San Francisco in the summer of 1973. The theater was packed with friends and family. We all clapped.

Five days latter, it was pulled from all of the screens in the Bay Area.

If anyone is interested hearing some of scene by scene details, which might make the movie even more enjoyable, please let me know.

We could start with the shot where Gideon Blake throws the toilet plunger to distract one of the evil henchmen guarding the radio transmitter on the deck of Bud's house.

Or how Gideon diffused the bomb in the original version.

Didn't help. It still bombed.

Bring it on.


This is absolutely beyond question the worst movie I have ever seen. It is so bad in fact that I plan on renting it again as soon as I can find it. This movie makes 'Plan 9 From Outer Space' look like an Oscar contender. Just LOOKING at the actors makes me want to laugh out loud. I cannot say enough bad things about this movie. It's awfulness aproaches perfection.

The plot is based on a terrorist attack with a nuclear weapon in San Francisco (I think). That's as far as I can go ... I am laughing too hard. I know it shouldn't be funny but ..... *LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL*

MOVE OVER ED WOOD !!!

Regard's *DATo*


this could have been better,but it was alright...it helped me get away from my boredom.I didnt even wanna see it,the only reason i wanted to rent it is because Jamie Martz is in it..he is a unknown actor but he is shining and is the highlight of the movie...the ending was so horrible and the acting was good for a b movie...i give it a 4 out of 10


Stay away from this movie. Far away. Phil Fondacaro stars as the demented ringleader of a Freakshow. Every performance is flat and unfeeling, except Fondacaro's. The plot is a simple one, and follows almost every horror movie cliche possible. A group of high-school kids go to a carnival, see a side-show, and get in over their heads.

Fans of Fred Olen Ray should be warned, this is not like any of his other films. This one is lacking in all departments (humor, sex, horror, etc.) other F.O. Ray movies excell in.

The version I saw also contained a Making-Of documentry, in which the director makes comments like "We had a limited budget" and "with our limited timeline" which speaks volumes about how much Charles Band cared about this film. Go rent "Droid Runner" (Fred Olen Ray) or "The Dead Hate the Living" (Full Moon) instead. Full Moon should be ashamed of themselves (and that's saying a lot after seeing "Killer Eye")

Grade: D-


Sideshow is a good example of a basically interesting idea gone very, very wrong. As far as horror movies go, and especially with the influx of teen movies at the moment, a film based around a bunch of teens attending a mysterious freak show is something you could have a lot of fun with.

However, the writer decided to make a very straight, very boring, very plain tale about five teens who become part of the show when enraged midget Abbot Graves transforms them into freaks using some pathetic machine that mutates them into beasts.

The five teens are picked off one by one until the last guy is left, his 'punishment' being that he is unable to join his friends and thus 'be alone'. What a load of rubbish!

The 'actors' are really poor, this film has no comedy (and it could have been so funny!), no gore (and it could have been so gory!), no action and no horror (and it could have had so much of both!)

The director has failed in his duty to even try to make this a little interesting to watch. His experience in soft-core has obviously disabled any creativity he may ever have had, as all the shots are the same, with very few edits and little movement. The quality overall is poor.

I'm not usually swayed by nudity in movies, but believe me the only high point in this film was a pair of breasts.


Someone else called this film a "fable-horror" movie, and I think that fits pretty well. That's the concept at least. A group of teenagers, each with their own vice, catch the eye of a twisted sideshow barker. He decides to teach the teens a lesson by making them part of the freak show. A cool idea, but could have been executed better. The fate for some of the teens is shoved in your face too obviously, while other characters could have been fleshed out more. Also, the ending was a serious let down. No resolution or big twist or anything.

But as a low budget horror movie, it's pretty fun to watch. If you're into cheesy spookfests, you should have a laugh watching this one. I think one of it's faults though... that it takes itself too seriously. It's a silly movie, and if it was a little more self-aware when it comes to that, I think it would have been better. But at least there's enough neat carnival themes and b-movie monster makeup to keep you watching.


This was not a very good movie, the acting pretty much stunk and the effects were bad most of the time. But there were some funny moments but most of those were not meant to be funny. The most hilarious part of the movie to me was the part were a little kid in wheelchair falls out (thats not the funny part What kind of person do you think I am)anyway the kid falls out and starts screaming for his big brother, well the brother comes running and the way the kid runs is so funny he's all stumbling and really over acting I had to rewind it several times so I could laugh some more. so if your looking for something to rent but just can't seem to find anything check this one out and watch for the running part.


Dumb is right: Tom and Jerry reach their goal of a non-stop air flight to Africa but then worry about mixing in with the natives. They put on "blackface," crash the plane, try to survive on an airplane wing floating in the ocean, and then survive the wild animals once they get on land

Having read a few reviews before seeing this, I knew what to expect. It was simply these two guys doing their Amos and Andy/Stepin' Fetchit impressions. Offensive to blacks? Of course, but that's the 1930s for you. Some of their lines were funny, some were stupid. The main fault I had with this cartoon was the audio, as it was often not easy to understand what these two guys were saying.

In all, a curiosity piece, but don't let the racism stop you from checking it out. At least it gives you an idea of how times have changed....for the better.


Tom & Jerry are visiting Africa and disguise themselves in an "Amos-n-Andy" fashion. They even act and talk differently, with the standard degrading usage of extremely poor grammar associated with the stereotypical image of blacks portrayed in many cartoons of the era. Aside from the offensive images, this cartoon just isn't very good. Why were they going to Africa in the first place? Apparently just to provide the audience with another Amos-n-Andy and the additionally overused cannibalistic portrayal of native Africans. The only reason this got a 2 instead of a 1 was there is a decent few seconds involving an octopus.

Worth one view, which will still leave you shaking your head wondering how ignorance could prevail...

(Note. I consider some cartoons containing such racially stereotypical images very good. It all depends on if there is good content surrounding the cartoon, or if the only reason for the existence of the cartoon is to make fun of those incorrectly portrayed. In other words, if you get rid of "Mammy," shuffling feet, the poor grammar, and black-face with giant lips images is there anything left? In the case of "Plane Dumb" there is not.)


Terrific production and a good comedic performance by George Clooney can't save curiously detached, occasionally clumsy quasi-comedy from Joel and Ethan Coen. Depression-era road tale hearkens back to yesterday with three escaped chain-gang prisoners seeking a hidden fortune, and inadvertently becoming country music stars in the process! The film meanders along but never builds any momentum. It does get a big boost from Clooney's charismatic, Gableesque mugging, and also from the art direction and T-Bone Burnett's lively music. Otherwise, the screenplay (by the Coens) is seriously lacking in humor and interest, supporting cameos by John Goodman and Holly Hunter fail to add any lift, and the second-half of the movie slides precariously into self-indulgence. ** from ****


Formula movie about the illegitimate son of a rich Chilenian who stands to inherit a fortune and gets mixed up in the affairs of bad guys and falls in love with a beautiful female lawyer (Vargas). It looks very much like a TV movie, not really exciting. The only reason I bothered to see it was because Valentina Vargas was in it. No real surprises here, though it is nice to see Vargas. Great looking Chilenian landscapes on display but Malcolm McDowell's part is very small and doesn't add much to the movie. Michael Ironside plays as usual a bad guy but this is not one of his most memorable parts. The chase scenes are standard fare.


Southern Cross, written and directed by James Becket is a waste of good celluloid and actor's efforts. A formula film is not necessarily bad if it pays off on it's promise, which this film does not. It is a tiresome concoction of movie cliches that can be traced to a thousand different films from the past. It is full of random and empty plot twists that add nothing but aimless action, such as a trip by the protagonists to a ghost town where the villains (unexplainedly) follow them. This was obviously concocted as an excuse for a shoot out and escape scene bordering on the preposterous, with people popping in and out of doorways and running past windows while firing pistols at each other. It makes one believe that somebody told Becket there was a ghost town in the Chilean foothills and he said, "Oh great, lets do a shoot out scene there."

Don't even waste your rental money on this. It is a bunch of random bits and pieces from a hundred different films thrown together to call an action drama.


He's the only reason to see this film. He gives a very good performance--much better than this crap deserves. He's very handsome and very talented--he deserves better than this. Also depressing is to see Malcolm McDowell in this. He's another talented actor who deserves better but, like Esai, he gives a very good performance. So, if you're fans of either of them you might want to watch. Otherwise, stay away. One more complaint--couldn't we have had more scenes of Esai shirtless?


This movie is really BAD, there is nothing appealing or worth of commentary in it except for the beautiful settings: Chilean landscape. I know I must supply four lines as a commentary for this movie, but the thing is that it is such a bad movie, that I can only say that is actually BAD. Michael Ironside is the only one who saves the money in the film.


The DVD for this film is by Alpha Video--a company that almost always releases the poorest quality prints. In Alpha's defense, often that is the only print available, but the specialize in public domain and cheap-o films. If you can find another print by a different company, try it first as the print for this film is scratchy and faded. Still, compared to most Alpha DVDs, this one is excellent--especially since the sound is pretty clear (and Alpha never seems to include closed captionings--even with films with horrid sound).

A man has been dating a lady for a very long time. One night, he's a bad boy and spends the night with another woman. Soon afterwords, he comes clean to his fiancée about this, she forgives him and they marry.

Very soon after the wedding, he gets a frantic call from the other woman--she NEEDS to see him and has just tried to kill herself. When they meet, he learns that she has an STD and she wanted him to know that he, too, might now have it. Then, although there is a nurse there and they are treating her for the suicide attempt, she somehow finds a gun and kills herself! The makes a HUGE mistake. He does not tell his doctor and he doesn't tell his new wife. Some time passes and now she and the baby are infected! At this point, the doctor meets with the guy and tells him about the importance of getting treatment and they shows him rooms filled with horribly infected people (actually, these were just films of people with STDs that they spliced into the film--most of whom have syphilis).

In some ways the film is very progressive. It addresses a serious issue and it's interesting how the film encourages couples NOT to wait to get married but to marry fast and give in to those sexual urges--but only with each other (not bad advice at all). On the other hand, the film never exactly says what it's talking about. They never use the terms STD, VD or the like, nor does it even name the diseases. Often it is referring to syphilis but at other times it's talking about herpes or other STDs--the information just isn't very clear or specific--a VERY common problem with such films from this era. Audiences at the time must have felt quite confused about what they were seeing and many of the more naive probably needed to have some of their 'faster' friends explain it all to them!

Speaking of "such films", in the 1930s-50s, lots of small and often sleazy production companies made films decrying the dangers of drugs and sex (though often they really just wanted to promise a bit of cheesecake for audiences who usually could not see such racy fare in Hollywood films). Many of these are hysterically funny since they are so over-done and the information so inaccurate. The most famous examples are REEFER MADNESS and SEX MADNESS (both by the same two-bit production company) and compared to how salacious and stupid those two films are, this cheap film seems like it should be in the Criterion Collection!!

Interestingly, there are weirdos out there (I would definitely be included among them) that enjoy seeing the films because they are often so bad and so horribly made that they are great fun. This one, however, isn't THAT bad nor is the message that convoluted and the film of the victims isn't as grotesque as some similar films. While the message really should have been more explicit and useful, for a 1933 film it's pretty good--despite the occasionally poor acting and the ludicrous suicide scene. Remember kids--just say 'NO' to suicide!

Oh, by the way, the "two years of treatment" they talk about in the film was actually the norm for syphilis back in 1933. Nowadays, it's a lot more treatable--as are the rest of the STDs.


Director Fabio Barreto got a strange Academy Nominea for his last movie O Quatrilho. Quatrilho is a bad movie, but in Bella Donna, Barreto did one of the Worst movies of All Time. His adaptation of the novel Riacho Doce is ridiculous. Think with me how poor brazilians fishermen speak a perfect english? In the film they do. There isn't a Screenplay, It's only a very long videoclip with a beautiful places and many sex scenes with Moscovis and Henstridge.


The movie is a happy lullaby, was made to make us sleep. And that´s what we do, as we dream about the top beautiful Natasha Henstridge. No screenplay, no deep characters, nothing special. So, let´s sleep.


Since Paul Kersey was running short of actual relatives to avenge, the third installment in the "Death Wish" saga revolves on him returning to New York to visit an old war buddy. He arrives only to find out that Brooklyn entirely changed into a pauperized gangland and that youthful thugs killed his friend and continuously terrorize all the other tenants of a ramshackle apartment building. Kersey strikes a deal with the local police commissioner, conquers the heart of his blond attorney, blows away numerous villains with an impressive Wildey Magnum gun and gradually trains & inspires the petrified New Yorkers to stand up for themselves. Okay, there's no more point in defending the "Death Wish" series after seeing part three. The 1974 original was a masterpiece that revolved on the social drama as much as it did on the retribution and, even though it was pure exploitation, part two still had quite a few redeeming qualities and at least the events were a logically linked to those occurring in the first. Number three frequently feels like a totally separate franchise. Apparently, Kersey isn't an architect anymore, he's ten times more social and talkative than he used to be and suddenly nobody, not even the police, is against vigilante actions anymore? All these changes and several other aspects make it more than obvious that Michael Winner and Charles Bronson reduced their "Death Wish" success to being a purely brainless and exploitative action series, with a death toll that gigantically increases with each episode, armory that becomes more and more explosive and criminals that get nastier, sleazier, meaner and a lot harder to kill. However, the gentlemen didn't seem to realize that the non-stop spitfire of violence actually creates an opposite effect, namely this extremely monotonous and much more boring than the previous two. I once read a brilliant review that referred to "Death Wish 3" as the pure definition of cinematic masturbation. This description couldn't be more spot-on, as the script tiredly moves itself from one repugnant execution sequence to the next. Particularly the final twenty minutes are a complete "orgy" of gunfire, explosions and executions realized through improvised homemade measures. Yi-Haaa! This entry in the series has quite an interesting supportive cast, including Martin Balsam ("Psycho", "12 Angry Men") as the fatigue neighbor who keeps machine guns in his closet, Ed Lauter ("Family Plot", "The Longest Yard") as the slightly unorthodox copper and even Alex Winter (from "Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure!) in his debut role as one of the thugs.


The 3rd in the series finds Paul Kersey (Bronson) turning vigilante to get revenge on the thugs that murdered his old buddy. I don't know why this movie shoved me into it, but somehow it did. I found myself rooting for Bronson to wipe the floor with those punks. Every time he blew one of them away I felt good. This movie does not take itself seriously, but what if it did? There is a good build-up to the fireworks finale in which Bronson goes on a rampage. But as far as acting and plot go, it just doesn't measure up. If I lived in that neighborhood, I would get out as fast as I could, but it seems like the people are asking for trouble. I know there is that mentality that we need to save our streets, but there is a limit here folks. I had to give it a 4. Sure there are good "blow 'em away" scenes but that's about it. At that time, Bronson was 64. I'm sure if those thugs really wanted to they could have their way with Bronson. Bronson takes the place of a Schwarzanegger or Stallone in this movie. This movie gives you a sense of rejoice. The common man can save the neighborhood, save the day. To sum it up, this is far from being the original Death Wish, but it is rather good if you are just looking for an hour and a half of shoot 'em up.


Naked Deanna Troi!

Richie's brother Chuck (from "Happy Days") with a reverse mohawk!

Death Wish 3 has all this and more, including one clever scene where Chuck Bronson's character sets up a mousetrap like device that brains a punk when he opens the window.

Chuck also places a board with a bunch of nails on the floor near another window and smiles when he returns and sees bloody footprints leading away.

All I can say about Death Wish 3 is that it is one of most incomprehensible "serious" movies that I have ever seen--loaded to the hilt with mayhem, and nearly zero police response, despite the use of military weapons to mow punks down by the score.

As I understand it, Bronson disowned this film, but happily cashed the check from Golan Globus.

If you enjoy quality movies, avoid this one, but if you're in for a cheap "Jackass" kind of thrill, check it out.


OK, I just flipped channels and caught DW3. I watched it knowing it would be trash..BUT..as a person who has seen tons of films, this one stands up there as one of the most purely bad films I have ever seen...I'm not kidding. It is so bad you have to watch it, like a bad accident you can't turn away from. Sometimes these kinds of films work, IE, Troma movies...but watching Martin Balsam and Charles Bronson slum it up like this is painful....What's even funnier is I pulled up IMDb to see what other people said and it actually scores a 4.1/10??? I can't believe it made it past 1.5! Equally as funny is this is not even the pinnacle of this series...somehow this garbage warranted part 4 and 5? And to top it all off, some dude's comments on here referenced this as the best of the series and his favorite film of all time??? Statements like that scare me about this world!


"Death Wish 3" is the movie equivalent of a shooting gallery. All the characters (apart from Bronson's Paul Kersey, of course) exist merely to be killed, either as "provocation" (the good guys) or as "retribution" (the villains). The director simply pours on the mindless violence (people even get burned alive and blown up), turning this into an urban version of "Commando" (and Charlie, like Arnold, rarely bothers to protect himself from the enemy gunfire). Fans of this short of thing (and, apparently, there are many) will enjoy it, others....beware. (*1/2)


This is slightly less sickening than the first two films, but otherwise it's business as usual: a scuzzy, sleazy and unbalanced slice of diseased cinema. Charles Bronson is back, blasting into action when his friend is killed by yobs terrorising the neighbourhood. Crime, you see, is up 11% in the South Belmont area... so what's to be done? A stronger police presence? Tougher jails? Harsher sentences? Nope, the only solution is to send in a loose cannon like Bronson to mete out bloodthirsty revenge  or, as the writers would have it, justice: this time he's the personal killing machine of police chief Ed Lauter.

The writers bend over backwards to make Kersey the hero, sending the useless cops into the area only to confiscate a weapon from an elderly resident who keeps it for protection, and supplying a scene in which Kersey has his camera stolen and shoots the thief right in the back, to applause from the watching crowd. Capital punishment for theft? Well, okay. The attitude of everyone in the film is that this is a solution, and the dishonest twisting of the characters into ciphers who exist only to cheer Kersey on or back him up is appalling.

Sure, these villains are scum, but shouldn't the film leave the audience to make up its mind, rather than slanting the entire thing towards Kersey and his mindless answer? Funnily enough the beleaguered residents don't fear gang reprisals or blame Kersey for any of the violence, which is odd as one character is killed precisely because of Kersey's involvement. At the end of the film they all take guns from their sock drawers and gleefully join in with the massacre, never stopping to think things through or struggle with the thought of having to kill another human being.

The atrociously shallow performances don't help  Bronson has literally one facial expression throughout and can't even put inflection on the right words. New heights of stupidity are reached here  a machine gun? A rocket launcher?!  and new lows of misogyny: the movie contrives to desecrate every female character in sight, whether by rape, explosion or throat-slashing; and it sets them up in supremely stupid fashion, like one victim who ventures into the crime-ridden, gang-controlled neighbourhood to ask out a stranger, or another who goes shopping alone at night. This is dreck, pure and simple, mindless garbage put together without style or sense.


This movie lacked credibility for two reasons. One, no mayor of a major city, and New York is certainly as major as it gets. Would allow a borough in his city to degenerate into such a violent place to live; especially for voters who could have much to say about his or her future job security. All of the victims in the movie were mostly elderly, Jewish or defenseless. At 62-years of age, I have never seen a movie that depicted such utter lack of respect for authority as this movie did. Even "Escape from New York," which was fictional, up front, i.e. they told you that this was science fiction, didn't resort to such deep-seated violence. In this movie, most of the elderly victims were victimized and yet had guns but were unwilling to use them. Also, in this movie and I have not seen the prior two, is more lawless than the "Escape" movie. Secondly, gangs as far as my research shows have never been as cooperative as this movie makes them out to be. On the one hand they catch a gang member from another gang working in their area and he's killed. Yet when the heroes start shooting at the local gang bangers, the next gang over is welcomed with open arms. Outside gang members are always viewed as outsiders and are stopped. We are supposed to believe that when automatic weapons are used against our gang, the other gangs want to be all into it. Why did the outside gangs come to help? I believe that more than one gang from outside came to help. What did they come for? Another question, why was the gang leader in jail and why do fellow jail inmates ask his permission to attack Bronson's character? This was not a great movie and I could go on, but I won't.


This movie could very well have been a propaganda movie for the North americian falangist party - or some similar group... The strong man (Kersey) places himself above the law (but not outside the law) and liberates upstanding citizens by killing worthless trash. The only thing that made me think it wasn't made by the KKK was the fact that a jew starred as a good guy... Try watching it again while thinking of it as a propaganda movie for an extreme right wing group - and you'll see what I mean...

It's a tragedy that Jimmy Page actually made music for this movie... :(


I was disappointed with the third film in the "Death Wish" series and wouldn't recommend this unless you are really into Bronson. He is his usual self in this one, maybe a bit lighter hearted than in the others; the rest of the cast is good if your watching a movie of the week on T.V. - the whole film has the production value of a bad episode of the A-Team and I like the escapism fun of a show like the A-Team but not on the big screen, even if it is an action movie that doesn't claim to be anything to sophisticated. The film takes a while to get going and then when it finally does, it gets out of control to the point of ridiculousness. The plot is something out of an episode of "Highway to Heaven" and Bronson seems like a fish out of water with the majority senior citizen cast and the gun play is so out of control you don't even get any satisfaction from Bronson's revenge against the bad guys. Skip this and go on to the 4th installment which I highly recommend.


I would put Death Wish 3 in the same box as Stallone's Cobra and Commando. The box that I would sell for $2 at a garage sale with all the videos inside. The story is about the main character coming back from the previous movies' success to ruin it all with this load of trash. Why did the makers want to destroy the reputation of the past 2 films with this cheap junk. The story is so lame that had to be a outrageous sequel. I mentioned Cobra earlier because it has the same mood, that one man can kill 20 or 30 gang members without a scratch. Both this movie and Cobra were bent on showing the hero firing his guns at hip level and the enemy falling in large numbers. Police officers spend hours at the shooting range so why did they get gunned down by gang members firing aimlessly from their hips? This movie was so bad I thought for a minute it was Death Wish 4.


Three businessmen are involved in a bar fight with three mysterious men. The three businessmen take revenge, which escalates to a murder after another. Supposedly the story is about the violence that could happen to ordinary people.

The plot has too many holes. The details were ignored in order to move the story forward. The acting was uneven. The color balance was awful even though I watched this movie in DVD. The small budget and tight schedule were apparent. The whole thing seems to be an excuse to shoot the final gun fight, and the ending was just unbelievable.


Seeing this film for the first time twenty years after its release I don't quite get it. Why has this been such a huge hit in 1986? Its amateurishness drips from every scene. The jokes are lame and predictable. The sex scenes are exploitative and over the top (that is not to say that Miss Rudnik does not have nice boobs!). The singing is "schrecklich". The only genuinely funny scene is the big shoot out when the gangsters die break dancing, a trait that dates the movie firmly to the mid-eighties. It's really quite puzzling to me how incapable I am to grasp what evoked the enthusiasm of the cheering audiences in 1986 (and apparently still today, reading my fellow IMDBers comments).


This tale of the upper-classes getting their come-uppance and wallowing in their high-class misery is like a contemporary Mid-Sommerish version of an old Joan Crawford movie in which she suffered in mink. Here, people behave in a frightfully civilized manner in the face of adversity. A well-heeled London solicitor, (Tom Wilkinson), discovers that not only is his wife having an affair with the local gentry but that she has also killed their housekeeper's husband in a hit-and-run accident. He throws up, but otherwise his stiff-upper-lip hardly quavers.

Written and directed by Julian Fellowes, who won an Oscar for writing "Gosford Park", (this is his directorial debut), from a novel by Nigel Balchin, it's quite comical although I am not sure how much of the comedy is intended. It's like a throw-back to British films of the forties where characters all behaved like characters in books or plays rather than like people might in real life. However, it's not all bad. Wilkinson is terrific, even if you never believe in him as a person while Emily Watson, (the adulterous wife), and Rupert Everett, (the highly amoral high-class totty), are both very good at covering the cracks in the material. Tony Pierce-Roberts' cinematography ensures that no matter how hard it is on the ear it's always good on the eye.


I was pulled into this movie early on, much to my surprise, because I hadn't intended to watch it at all. Now I wish I hadn't. The suspense starts out well, with the hit-and-run resulting in death and the question of whether the guilty character will confess, or be found out, or (doable now, though a no-no in the old days of movie-making) get away with it. The plot's been done before--what plot hasn't--but the tensions inherent in it, with the additional complications and motivations arising out of the illicit love affair, make for an absorbing first half. Then the film abandons the hit-and-run to embark upon a misty exposition of two unrequited, all-suffering loves. The two tracks of plot--hit-and-run and unreasoning love--just don't have enough to do with each other, and that they involve the same characters doesn't bind them enough to justify the departure from the original story line. The screenwriter should have chosen one plot or the other. At the end of the film, in the midst of the movie's second funeral, I found myself thinking, "Now, what does any of this have to do with that hit-and-run?" The filmmakers may think the answer obvious, but I think the movie was plotted and executed flabbily.


I'm a huge fan of both Emily Watson (Breaking The Waves) and Tom Wilkinson (Normal) and was amused to see them upstaged by Rupert Everett (Dellamorte Dellamore) in this shockingly rather minor movie that had all the ingredients to be so much more. The too brief scenes in which he portrays a languid, infinitely entitled, worthless son of a rich Lord are spot-on and entertaining. But for a love triangle there was remarkably little chemistry to speak of between anyone. The music was annoyingly movie-of-the-week quality, and the voice-over jarring and totally unnecessary. Clearly the work of a first-time director with a small budget who either lacked or didn't sufficiently heed good advice. Too bad.

I can appreciate how the people you kind of hate at the beginning are the ones you kind of like at the end, and vice-versa, so there is some sort of character arc, at least in terms of perception. For example, Watson's character, while refreshingly honest to her husband about her feelings for another man, began to grate on me near the end, particularly when she announced to her husband that she simply had absolutely no control over her actions, and later when she simply declared that she would be moving back into their marital flat, with no asking of permission, no apologies offered. And I went from disliking Wilkinson's control freak / moral relativist character to sort of understanding him and not really wanting him to change (unlike his wife).

This movie awkwardly morphed from a whodunit to a "Love Story" or "Steel Magnolias" illness drama without sufficiently informing me of the fact, so I was left distractedly guessing what the next plot twist might be long after they had all been revealed (Was it the Lord driving the car? The Lord's dog?). The scene where the Lord visits Wilkinson and relates how brave Watson is, the bestest nurse any dying boyfriend could ever ask for, Florence Nightingale incarnate, etc. was OK until he started over-the-top sobbing like a baby. Good God! If you ask me she's just another flitty rich person with way too much time on her hands, and so she drives her hard working, well providing spouse crazy with unnecessary drama. Her screwing around was just another way to occupy her empty life; the dying guy thing was an added bonus for her as it somehow made her previous actions completely above reproach.

Look, everyone would have been better off if Wilkinson had just left her for his secretary, who seemed to appreciate him for who he was. Instead he acted like an abused dog, his open craving for his wife's affection increasing with every kick she gives him. I'm not anti PC or anything, it just didn't ring true, even after taking into account all of the harsh realities of middle age we all tend to face. The ending for me was (and not the director's intention I am certain) depressing. The movie spent the last 80 minutes convincing me that these two people just don't belong together, so I found no joy in the promise of their relationship continuing. I'm not above wanting my emotions manipulated by a story, it just has to be somewhat plausible and not hackneyed. Is that asking too much?

My score: 4/10


First of all, I would like to say that I am a fan of all of the actors that appear in this film and at the time that I rented it, I wanted to like it.

I think that the main reason that I was so disappointed was that the outside box promised me a suspense thriller. In my eyes, a suspense thriller for British movies is like something out of a Ruth Rendell novel, something that has a lot of dark twist and turns and leaves the viewer with an ending that is unlikely to be forgotten anytime soon.

This movie started out with the promising note of being such a film. We have our main character, that suspects a man that he does not like, of being involved in a hit and run that killed the husband of one of his servants.His notions prove to be right, but the idea that his wife might be involved, does not occur to him until that she confesses to him that she was a part of the crime.

The elements of a good suspense thriller were in place, at this point, but from there, I felt that the film took a different direction and became almost some sort of a mild soap opera about who wants to be with who and what the love of a real relationship is. The film might have been enjoyable to me, if the outside box had talked of a twisted lover's triangle and had not been labeled as suspense thriller.This seemed to be more of a soap opera story and the beginning setting seemed to be a mild distraction to the true content of the film. I felt like this film could have done a whole lot better than it did. I felt like it kept leading the viewer up to a big event that never materialized. So, I have to give it a lower rating than I would have liked to and say that it fell short of my expectations.


The basic genre is a thriller intercut with an uncomfortable menage-a-trois. Fellowes has tried to make a lot more out of this, using the lies of the title in order to bring about all manner of small twists, invariably designed to surprise the characters more than the audience.

It's really rather messy though. Fellowes doesn't seem interested presenting the thriller elements in a fashion that will keep us seat-edged. Rather his focus is on the moral predicaments themselves.

The dialogue is inconsistent, stagey here, vernacular there and with the constant surprise of realism undone by the occasional cliché-landmine. Though there is no fussing over the locations so that the actors can get on with existing in their space the dreadful score can't create a further dimension and often works against the emotional momentum of given set pieces. There's also a very prosaic, dare I say it British feel to the filming. I didn't want to see a document of two successful middle class people caught in an extraordinary situation, I wanted to see some sort of artful recounting of the story.

Finally it is, in fact, the story which lets the rest down. Just as the elements of suspense are rather flat so the story is an asymmetric sum of subplots of different shapes and sizes, woven as a vehicle for character examination. Wilkinson and Watson support this meta-essay with good performances and John Warnaby's ebullient colleague Simon to Wilkinson is a welcome foil for much of the brow-furrowing.

I'm disappointed; not that it's bad, but that it could have been much better. 3/10


Starting with a tearjerking poem and images of american missiles, starving children and mutilated palestinians I quickly realised that this was not going to be a objective documentary. 5 youths convicted after the gothenburg riots are interviewed and give a very confused explaination why they had to trash the citycenter and then (oh my god) actually have pay for what they have done. I kept watching and many questions are raised, were the trial properly done and did the cops have the right to do what they did? Lots of questions asked... and then dropped. No interviews with judges or going through documents about the trial.. nothing.

In short: Nothing new from what every Swede has seen on tv a hundred times - just poor propaganda.


Writer & director Robert Downey, Sr., a pioneer of the underground film movement in the 1960s, satirized the New York Madison Avenue advertising world with his avant-garde comedy "Putney Swope." Downey doesn't confine his ridicule to advertising, but tackles black militant culture, the dynamics in Hollywood's portrayal of race, the elite white power structure, and character of corruption in any power struggle. As audacious and ambitious as "Putney Swope" strives to be, it qualifies as a terrible film, amateurishly made on a shoe-string budget with a no-name cast and humor that lacks hilarity. Everything about this movie reeks with improvisation. "Putney Swope" stirred up controversy during its initial release with its politically incorrect handling of race issues and consumer culture. Like most Marx Brothers movies, the plot is thin, providing an excuse for Downey's anecdotal gags, most of which are terrible.

The chairman of a prestigious Madison Avenue ad agency dies during a board meeting. Before the body has been removed, the board holds a secret ballot vote to determine who will replace him. Each member understands that they are forbidden to vote for himself. Sheer accident occurs when everyone votes for the token black member, Putney Swope (Arnold Johnson), since none thought anybody would cast a ballot for him. Swope pink slips all but one of the white executives, surrounds himself with black, pistol packing employees, and renames the firm "Truth and Soul Advertising." Swope decides to alter the face of American advertising. He refuses to accept clients whose products are alcohol, tobacco, or war toys. Swope's clients stage an exodus after he becomes the CEO, and grandstanding attracts a new line-up of clients that show up at his office lugging bags of money and prepared to suffer abuse from Swope's militant employees. Swope exploits his African-American staff, too, ruthlessly appropriating their ideas after he fires them and conjures up a number of offensive advertising campaigns, all of which are hailed as a 'new wave' of marketing genius. Incredibly, Swope's conservatism proves successful but the agency becomes the target of government operatives who argue Swope's advertising tactics constitute "a threat to the national security." The high point of this black & white, 85-minute comedy are the television commercials shot in color. Unfortunately, Downey doesn't know when to cut off these ads that consistently start out cleverly but wear out their welcome. The funniest part of "Putney Swope" involves our eponymous protagonist's dealings with U.S. President Mimeo in Washington D.C. (Pepi Hermine), a marihuana-toking midget with a Kissinger-like Teutonic adviser (Larry Wolf) spouting tasteless jokes while trying to convince Swope to come up with an advertising campaign for his new car, the Borman 6.


Black and white satire of a Madison Avenue ad agency being taken over by blacks. They're headed by Putney Swope (Arnold Johnson) who is determined to change things. However he turns out to be even WORSE than his white predecessors. That's about as original as this gets.

I'm sure this was considered daring and shocking in 1969 but it just seems silly today. The jokes are either unfunny (the president is a midget. HOW is this funny?), cruel or obvious and the film is full of unlikable characters. It's done in a very experimental way which makes it even harder to take...or understand. The movie just gets more bizarre and surreal as it goes along. The ending comes out of nowhere. To make it worse, with the sole exception of Johnson, ALL the acting is bad. Antonio Fargas (a regular in these types of films) is especially annoying as the Arab. This gets three stars because the commercial parodies (done in bright color) ARE amusing and there's a rare good line here and there. I heard this was a cult classic but this is more interesting than good. Skip it...unless you're in experimental 1960s films.


I think Downey was perhaps inspired by French new-wave.

Who wasn't?

Unfortunately, what he ended up creating here was more along the lines of crackhead new-wave.

A synapse is obviously a terrible thing to lose and Downey appears to have lost plenty.

Just say no, indeed. In more ways than one. Including to watching this film.

I couldn't bear it after a while and began fast forwarding through it. It would have been wiser to have just skipped it altogether.


This is a poor excuse for a movie. A film noir done by Busbee Berkeley? Please! First, let's forget about the plot, a truly simple-minded version of a cynical tough guy turned into a saint by the love of a pretty blonde. Yechh. So what turns her from despising him to loving him? Along with a group of other guys, he helps keep a kid from drowning as they all swim in a water tower and try to survive as the water is siphoned off, stranding them. It isn't exactly heroics, but she's suddenly smitten. It's truly painful to watch Claude Rains trying to portray a hard-bitten, tough-talking, noir-type cop. A crooked grimace is his main and rather pathetic acting tool, along with a growling voice. Most of his energy seems to go into trying to hide the intelligence that shines in all his other roles. How he ever got talked into taking this job I'll never understand. Enjoy it, if you can, for a few period details, the old cars and gas pumps, but don't expect a decent film experience. It wasted 1-1/12 hours of my life.


The Monkees "Head" is one of those peculiar phenomenons I've noticed- that when something doesn't make sense, people will try to read things into it and give it great deep meanings, which its creator never intended. Such is the case here.

The movie is a stream-of-consciousness spectacle of The Monkees floating in and out of various sketches, blackouts, set pieces, etc. similar to the ones on their TV show. But while the TV show was played for laughs, this doesn't seem to be played for anything except a sort of deep, trippy, pseudo-intellectual state that this brand of psychedelia imposes. All in all, it's The Monkees doing the same schtick, but now it's "consciousness-raising" because the laugh track is removed. There is not a stitch of humor or meaning to the whole thing; it just drones on with colored lights.

The music in "Head" should prove to anyone, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that the Monkees had not a scrap of songwriting ability. The tunes are mostly garbage; the only one that's even listenable is "Porpoise Song", which opens and closes the film. But the thing is, that was a Gerry Goffin-Carole King song, and, while it's above-average for the Monkees, it's below-average by Goffin and King standards. It's like hearing one of the old Peter And Gordon songs that Paul McCartney wrote for them: you might think it's a pretty good song, but then you find out who composed it, and you realize it's a throwaway. Mike Nesmith's song is maybe passable, the rest is worthless. Davy Jones has, I guess, what the filmmakers imagined to be "the big number" in the picture, since it's the only song presented As Show Biz and not cut into a film montage or dream sequence, but it falls flat, too, just because the song isn't any good.

I have to admit I always liked the Monkees, so the movie is a real disappointment. Sure, they were cheesy, but they were so cheerful about it.

They knew they were cheesy and they were cool with it. But then they got ambitious. In "Head", they actually joke about being a manufactured pop product, but the truth is, they wanted something more. They wanted to be Great Musicians and taken seriously as artists. Maybe not like the Beatles, but something approaching that. "Head" proves that they failed on all counts. 1* out of 4


at a Saturday matinee in my home town. I went with an older friend (he was about 12) and my mom let me go because she thought the film would be OK (it's rated G). I was assaulted by loud music, STRANGE images, no plot and a stubborn refusal to make ANY sense. We left halfway through because we were bored, frustrated and our ears hurt.

I saw it 22 years later in a revival theatre. My opinion had changed--it's even WORSE! Basically everything I hated about it was still there and the film was VERY 60s...and has dated badly. I got all the little in-jokes...too bad they weren't funny. The constant shifts in tone got quickly annoying and there's absolutely nothing to get a firm grip on. Some people will love this. I found it frustrating...by the end of the film I felt like throwing something heavy at the screen.

Also, all the Monkees songs in this movie SUCK (and I DO like them).

For ex-hippies only...or if you're stoned. I give this a 1.


As their entire career was a pale impersonation of The Beatles, it is no surprise that, shortly after the great fiasco of the Beatles "Magical Mystery Tour," the Monkees would follow up with their own insipid and creative morass of a movie, called "Head." Both movies are not so much a true story with a plot (though MMT attempted to define a plot) as they are a hodge-podge of skits and snippets, interspersed with music and songs and out-takes.

"Head" has no plot, other than the pre-fab-four trying to break free of "the box" they are in (i.e. the type-casting of being "Monkees" and the surrounding commercialism) and yet, always finding themselves back in the box. Most skits involve breaks in the "fourth wall" and crossing over into other, seemingly unrelated scenes. Filled with anti-Vietnam war messages and attempts by the group to show their other talents, the film bounces around haphazardly- also to be blamed on the multiple directors.

The film, like Magical Mystery Tour, is now excused by some fans as "wonderful symbolism and misunderstood artistic statements." Phooey. Like MMT, it is too many guys with access to too many drugs all trying to make something artsy and making crap.

Like MMT, "Head" has some clever moments and offers some relatively unknown Monkees songs that are quite decent. It does develop a bit more charm than MMT and is a bit easier to sit through, but it is not ironic at all that, like everything else the Monkees did, this was just a mimicry of something the Beatles did first... even when it comes to laying an egg.


This is possibly the worst movie i've ever seen, it was horribly done it didn't flow it was very choppy, because of that many people didn't understand the movie at all. I had to watch this movie several times before I got an idea about what was happening, OK its like this a kid stole someones car and while running from the police he totals it, for some reason the cops let him off and he has to face his parents who sent him to live with his uncle out in the wilderness, there he meets a girl who loves to rock climb and he gets into the sport and has to beg his uncle to let him enter a contest for climbing, and yeah thats about it like i said horrible movie.


Talk about being boring!

I got this expecting a fascinating insight into the life of the man who wrote the mythical Night on the Galactic Railroad. I expected to see crazy stories and hijinks of an eccentric man and to discover his inspirations for such bizarre material. Boy, was I wrong.

Spring and Chaos is mostly boring with only sporadic moments of innovative animation. It's certainly nothing to write home about and nowhere near as good as NOTGR which is something that I suggest you watch instead. Leave this bore alone. If you absolutely MUST see then either rent it or find it somewhere cheap. Do not pay top dollar.


Being a history buff, I rented this movie because of the subject matter. The idea of the Ellis Island experience at the turn of the century focusing on one small group is intriguing. Unfortunately, the movie falls flat. Much of the story is simply boring; nothing much happens for long stretches. The director uses goofy imagery (offered up in the form of daydream sequences) in an apparent attempt to break up the glacial pacing, but instead, it clashes with the authentic look and feel of the movie. The characters are also poorly drawn. In the end, we don't really care as much about them as we should. It's a shame that this wasn't what it could have been. I would still like to see a good movie about the American immigrant experience, but this one isn't it.


***POSSIBLE SPOILERS BELOW***

What a long and mostly uninteresting movie! Who were these characters? Why didn't I care about them? If I'm going to watch a movie for two hours, I'd like to care about somebody or something.

We know that Salvatore dreamed of the riches to be found in the new world. Beyond that, though, we learned little about most of his family's hopes, fears, etc., as they embarked on an adventure into the unknown.

And why was Lucy even in this movie? She said little; we knew little about her or what she was doing (was she forced to service men in exchange for being allowed to board the ship?) or what her plans were upon reaching New York. To those who might suggest that she was needed to underscore the point that a single woman, however cultured, could not get into this country alone, I say that that fact is not enough justification to give her so much screen time. That point could have been made in five minutes, with Lucy as a momentary character.

More questions: Why wasn't the twin brother at the boat to meet the family? We heard about the brother, and some closure on that point would have been helpful in giving the movie some cohesiveness. Also, how long was the journey from Italy to New York? Given the conditions on the ship, it makes a difference to the viewer if the voyage took five or 10 or 50 days. (Someone said something about seeing land a "week" at one point, but I think that was when they were already en route.) I needed these types of details to better appreciate what they were going through.

The only scene I really liked was when the boat, filled with passengers, left the dock.

If you choose to rent this movie, do so with remote in hand; you may want the Fast Forward button handy.

Finally, may I suggest that, with the right voice-over providing helpful information about the times and the circumstances for immigrants--particularly during the slow stretches of endless shots of the countryside, people walking, etc.--this movie might have made an interesting public TV documentary.


The best part in this movie is the first one, located in Sicily, I suppose. Crialese shows a good talent for photography and the movie start is delightfully surprising. The rest of the story is quite boring. Crialese uselessly insists on stereotypical situations and characters, trying to melt neorealistic suggestions and video-music technique, Fellinian surrealistic remembrances and a very annoying and completely off-topic soundtrack, leading the whole thing towards an end which gives you the sensation of an exaggeratedly long story cut abruptly short. Frankly, this is a real overrated movie and Crialese is a real overrated director.


The most generic, surface-level biography you could hope for. Busey's impersonation of Holly is accurate -- but who wants to hear Gary Busey sing "Maybe Baby"? Typically, the members of the Hollies are used for comic relief and melodrama (Smith and Stroud, respectively) instead of as people or even characters. When Holly uses a string section, the old jewish-looking guys who come in tell him he's using the same techniques as Mozart. It's just this kind of cheeky statement that makes film biographies like this (and "Amadeus", about the aforementioned Mozart) so worthless. Some entertainment can be derived from Holly's excellent styles and songs done in a B-variation.


I always think it would be nice if you could somehow have a 'sneak preview' at some of the old movies that are re-released on DVD, before you purchase them. That way you could save yourself some time, money and a certain degree of aggro when you feel so utterly let down.

"The Buddy Holly Story" is such a movie.

I do not wish to go into the characterizations, or the holes in the plot, or the messing around with historical facts that this movie encompasses, for I had already come to terms with them twenty years ago, when I first began watching it.

I had recorded it on the old (Monaural) Beta machine back in the early 1980s, and liked it so much, that it became a regularly-played favourite. The best part, to my mind, was Gary Busey's performance as the young Buddy, and his near-perfect vocals and guitar playing.

I looked forward to the day when I could have it in ...STEREO..., and that is where the disappointment comes in.

This DVD version is (supposedly) re-mastered in both audio and video, according to the shell information, but I'm afraid it left me sadly let-down and glancing at my watch, wishing for it to end.

The sound is murky, bordering on the unintelligible, and so unprofessionally mixed that it had me yearning for the crystal-clarity vocals of my old Beta tape!

Despite what you think of the images, or the plot, or the characters, the real draw card here is the MUSIC......and if you can't hear the lead vocals because they are drowned out by the cymbals, or the backing harmonies, or other ambients, then there's not much left, is there?

I'm going to convert my old Beta version to (Mono) DVD for subsequent viewings, and put this one where it belongs, out with the rubbish!

"Extinction is the Rule, Survival is the Exception..."


This movie would have been alright, indeed probably excellent, if the directors would have left the interviews and the concert footage separate. "Into the Void" is a great song, and I hate how it is cut off at the best part to go to an mumbling interview with Ozzy Osbourne. That should have been at the end of the film, or located in a special feature. The best part of concert DVDs is to put them on and let the music play, but "Black Sabbath: The Last Supper" is hard to put and and simply let play because the music is continually interrupted. Nevertheless, there are a few strengths to this film; the concert footage, when it does play, it excellent. Black Sabbath returns to the stage after a long hiatus without Osbourne and this film captures that well: Sabbath basically rocks the fans. The fans, of course, have a sweet advantage in the film because they are seeing the band live, of course, but also they do not have to put up with the incessant interviews that the DVD viewers are burdened with. Shame on Jeb Brien and Monica Hardiman (the directors) for doing this to the film! Also, shame on Wyatt Smith for editing the film in such a way.


To remake "Lost Horizon", as a musical, the need for a Rodgers & Hammerstein or Lerner & Lowe type musical composition was needed. Burt Bacharach and Hal David were the wrong choice. Having said that, my favorite thing about "Lost Horizon", is its score. It's just that the score doesn't fit the piece. The cast, is made-up of mostly non-musical talents (Ullman, Finch and Hussey, were all dubbed, and still don't sound all that great).

Frankly, the novella, on which this, and the earlier non-musical film versions were based, is mediocre, at best. While the possibilities for a truly good, cinematic musical version exist, they are not realized here. The film succeeds at being a good, rainy-day vehicle, to pass the time. Otherwise, you are better off, buying the CD of its soundtrack. Only recommended as a curiosity piece, due to the film's awful reputation. I've seen much better; but I've seen MUCH worse.


I was an extra on this film, in the part shot at the airport in the first 15 minutes or so; I was one of the fleeing (mostly Mexican) Bangladeshi refugees running across the runways at Ryan Field in Tucson. At one point, standing around in our turbans as we waited for another shot, one of my fellow extras turned to me asked me what the move was going to be about. I told him it was going to be a remake of Lost Horizons, only as a musical. There was a long pause, then he replied: "Man, this movie is gonna suck". Pretty perceptive of him, I thought. I had a good time and made a bit of money, but even with some interesting personal memories attached to this movie I can't sit through the whole thing.

If you ever saw the movie "The Swarm", you can pretty much get the idea. You get to see a lot of famous and talented people wasted on an an idea that on the face of it is just BAD. The idea seemed to be that if you throw enough money at a movie and hire enough big names, then a good story and good writing aren't necessary. Just turn the big crank, and out comes the product. It's just not worth watching.


..but unfortunately no one thought about having Van killed in order to save this doomed production. The only positive thing about him in the film is his nice singing voice...too bad the songs are mostly insipid and sappy. Why did I hate Van so much? Well, throughout the film he seemed like he was doing a third-rate Soupy Sales imitation--with lots of mugging, bad jokes and way too much energy spent trying to make everyone laugh. The worst of these moments was when he was "teaching" the class--these kids laughed at EVERYTHING he did. Heck, Van could have read the phone book or showed them autopsy photos and they probably would have laughed! Now Van was not the only bad casting decision in the film--he was just the most obvious. Of course, having John Gielgud (a lovely actor) play an Asian was ridiculous as well as having Michael York play Peter Finch's brother!! The bottom line is that because of these insane casting choices, the film was doomed from the start....and the worst of them was the god-awful Bobby Van. Now in real life, he might have been a lovely person and it's sad that in real life he died so young, but with the material they gave him here I just wanted to rip out his tongue to get him to be quiet.

Now I also mentioned the songs--egad, those terrible songs!! The original LOST HORIZON by Frank Capra was a subtle delight throughout--and not a single song and dance number in the film. So why did they decide to add a bazillion songs that did nothing to help the film? They only served to make it seem like a gooey mess--like the original DOCTOR DOOLITTLE combined with LOST HORIZON. The end result is a sickly sweet children's movie--not one that can be enjoyed by anyone over 8.

Now if you can remove these problems, you have the basis of a decent film. After all, the plot is lovely and is still hidden beneath all the goo. Peter Finch is particularly good (though certainly not the equal of Ronald Colman in the original). But, considering that the original was a near-perfect classic, why bother with this sticky confection. Who wants to wade through the treacle?!

By the way, this film was included in "The 50 Worst Films" book by Harry Medved. While I, too, disliked the film, it wasn't bad enough to merit inclusion in the book. I think it was included mostly because it was such a huge box office failure and because it was released just a few years before the book appeared. An excellent book--just not one of the best selections to the "hallowed hall" of dreck.