Some movies are off-beat, but enjoyable, but many movies are just mind-numbingly weird. "Motorama" fits not-so-nicely in the latter category. Many seem to like it because of endless guest appearances and a total lack of sense, but those two things can only take a movie so far, and "Motorama" simply doesn't have any other merits to its credit.

"Motorama" delights itself on plot improbabilities. Its main character, Gus, is a cussing 10-year old on a roadtrip across an imaginary country trying to collect game pieces to win $500 million. When interacting with adult figures, none of them seem to notice or be concerned with the fact that he's 10 years old. At first it's incredibly funny, but it quickly becomes just too unbelievable, especially considering the people he runs into and the fact that he seems so unfazed by a lot of the disturbing (to someone that age) imagery going on around him. Gus has no depth, and, as an anti-hero who has no problem causing misery for others to get his game pieces, it's hard to feel sorry for him when he encounters trouble.

That trouble is provided by a slew of guest appearances, each mistreating Gus in more and more strange ways. Besides making the already worn-out plot even more unbelievable and less enjoyable, the characters share Gus' lack of depth and are equally unmemorable. The character's actions can get a little interesting, but the actors themselves don't add anything to them, thus negating the whole point of getting big names (they could've been played by anyone and the character would've been the same). These guest appearances seem to have been signed more for marquee value than anything else.

"Motorama" should be interesting - it's a unique idea, but there's too little semblance of sense in the script for it to work. Incidents that should have a lasting effect on the anti-hero and the viewer don't, as the movie quickly moves from incident to incident, in the hope that something will eventually make the audience feel sorry or understanding for Gus. That never happens, as by doing so nothing is allowed to connect, it just jerks back and forth as if on a conveyor belt, one incident after another. With a story so nonsensical it ceases to be enjoyable, and a main character who never evolves to care for himself or anyone else on a higher level, "Motorama" has little to offer except a brat sneaking around and trying to get rich. Why should we care about that?


I'm not going to say too much as this movie isn't worth the effort. To put it simply the movie absolutely sucked! This is the worst movie I have ever seen. The storyline was stupid, you couldn't follow what was happening, the characters were so annoying especially the main guy. I wanted someone to kill that kid and put him and the movie out of it's misery.

Very, very bad.


I don't know what the makers of this film were trying to either accomplish or say, but they badly failed at whatever it was. Unless of course the object was to totally confuse the viewer. I watched this movie simply because Drew Barrymore was in it, and it turned out that she had a smaller than small cameo in it. The whole idea of having this kid go on some wild car trip to win a big money prize from a gas station game and meet up with all sorts of wackos is utterly ridiculous.


I didn't really care for this. Had they gotten rid of the comedy/slapstick and focused on the dramatic/philosophical aspects of the script, this might have been worthwhile.

The more the film went on, the less I liked the protagonist/mailman. He does have interesting things to say, but he's also a hypocritical, insecure jerk.

3/10


I did not quite get Barnens O  it is one of the weirdest ones I have watched. The soundtrack was quite unusual as well  written and performed by Jean Michel Jarre - it makes the movie weirder than it was. I have to admit that I was almost going to change it and watch another one instead at times the movie seemed plain dumb to me, or boring  or confusing. There are quite a few sexual references in that movie  trough they too are kind of messed up . Probably the only phrase that I will remember out of it is going to be "When you are alone, you can control things " and "I will show them "- or something like that .The boy in that movie was obsessed with the idea of not growing up  "the last summer as a child "he thought once  and he sure lived it to the max. So if you have few hours to spare you can watch this movie  but you won't miss much if you don't.


A long time ago, way back in the early '80s, a late-night TV show "Fridays" came to ABC, trying to steal the limelight away from NBC's badly-listing "Saturday Night Live". It didn't but it did introduce some repugnant sketches and semi-talented "comedians" to the world. Like Mark Blankenfield, for example.

Which, in a roundabout way, brings us to "Jekyll and Hyde... Together Again". Which is repugnant in ways all its own.

Blankenfield is about as subtle as a pew full of whoopee cushions going off after Communion. And about as tasteful, too. This is just his drugged-out druggist character he played on the ill-fated "Fridays" show stretched out to feature length. And if you didn't like him there, why are you reading this review?

Any time it takes more than one or two writers to write a movie, that's a bad sign. Then when it goes for dunder-headed jokes that would get you thrown off every improv stage in the Western hemisphere and replaces gags with gross-out, things can only get worse.

A comic take on a Robert Louis Stevenson story? About as good an idea as making a sitcom out of Poe's "Fall of the House of Usher".

Aside from a few (VERY few) gags that give a slight grin, this whole film is an exercise in waste - wasted actors, wasted film, wasted opportunities.

No wonder they showed original author Stevenson turning in his grave. What more observant a review could they give themselves?

No stars. No, not even for Armstrong, who should have known better.

"Hyde" from this one.


Sometimes it is funny to watch films implode from your couch, but other times it is just horribly painful to both your eyes and your mind. House Party 4: Down to the Last Minute is one of those rare examples of when both your eyes and your mind are pleading with you to turn the film off. This final installment to the House Party series is by far the worst, not just sequel, but film released by Hollywood. It becomes very apparent early on in this "feature" that director Chris Stokes loved Ferris Bueller's Day Off with a passion. I say this because it becomes very clear that Stokes had no trouble lifting the originality of Bueller off John Hughes' hands and choosing to create a film completely void of humor. You would think that by "stealing" themes and images from a funnier film, your own film would at least be able to generate a giggle or two. With House Party 4, Stokes proved that he does not have what it takes to direct a sequel, much less a Hollywood film. From his confusing and choppy story, the inability to make sense of his characters, and recycled old/tired cliché moments, all Stokes is doing is hitting a bigger nail into the coffin that holds the House Party films. It reminds me of that student that forgets about his project due in an hour and quickly slops together super glue, macaroni, cat hair, chewing gum, and straws and presents it as "Hannibal Crossing the Alps". It just looks horrible and you feel embarrassed for the creator.

So, where did this film first take the plunge into the realm of comic stupidity? Honestly, I do not think that most places will allow me to speak that long, so instead I would like to hit upon some of the larger topics that hit me the hardest. To begin, I still cannot shake the Ferris Beuller rip-off. It was as if director Stokes was ashamed of having to direct another sequel to House Party and decided to bring in a completely random formula (from a funnier film) and see if he could cut and paste elements from the original series into that formula. That was a huge mistake. When a director tries to do this, what eventually happens is confusion within the audience. We think that we are going in one direction, but instead we head in another one. That is exactly what you can witness in House Party 4. In one instance we have John-John trying to have the "biggest party of the decade" while also trying to score a record deal (ok, kinda reminds me of the original House Party), but then we whisk away to this random island where Uncle Charles is afraid of flying, Grandma gets drunk, and some idiotic mind-dulling moments with a supposed killer. Again, we begin somewhat strong, and end chaotic. This is the confusion in which I speak. Director Stokes did not have the ability to keep his hand on either the pulse of humor or the ability to tell a sequential story. He would rather cut corners, keep the jokes cheap, and think that the audiences are idiots than attempt to revive a stone-dead series. One would think that when a director was handed that task of filming another House Party film he would walk into it thinking that he/she would be the one to revive it or bring it back to life, instead Stokes just wanted to get paid.

I realize that I am slowly growing older as the days go quickly by, but I do believe I still keep my hand in the younger generation's culture. I listened to rap and R&B growing up, but the group "Immature" never made it to either my cassette deck or my CD player. Why? I don't think they ever quite had a following, but apparently to director Chris Stokes, it would be beneficial to cast them as leads in his new House Party film. Didn't anyone at any studio realize that this was going to be in the red rather quickly? Or how about the option to have Stokes himself play the comedic car repairman, nothing like a director with no sense of comic timing casting himself as the only source of possible humor. It was one of those few instances when I actually missed Robin Harris, and I never thought I would find myself saying that to any film. Outside of a go-nowhere band playing the lead role, I also thought that the remainder of the cast only continued to suck the life out of this film. Uncle Charles was annoying when he attempted humor. Kim Whitely was completely wasted for her scenes (both literally and figuratively) while  well  everyone else pretty much falls into that category.

Where did Chris Stokes spend most of the budget for this film? Not for special guest stars because while this film may have boasted some, there were definitely none present at the "unforgettable" House Party, nor the possible dream that perhaps Kid or Play would make one final appearance. House Party 4 followed no preset design, which ultimately ruined this feature from the foundation down. Can anyone explain to me why there was any need to use the "escaped murderer who happened to be a licensed taxicab driver" routine for humor? Stokes was reaching deep within the bottom of the barrel and only produced more muck instead of substance. For once I can admit to there being no redeeming value to this film. House Party 4 buried the series, and while I do hear that there may be more in the pipeline, I only hope Hollywood realizes that this series has died. Hollywood needs to let this series end, forget about the past and move forward in the future. I think a sequel to Who's the Man? would get them started in the right direction.

Grade: * out of *****


Let me first start with the obvious: antisemitism has been a serious problem throughout history, present in many societies and causing the deaths of million of Jews. That said, the problem with this movie is that it views the United States - probably the most welcoming society ever to Jews outside of Israel - as a not very different place from Nazi Germany. Set in 1943, the movie is about a man (William H. Macy) who gets confused with a Jew after he starts wearing glasses!. A number of very nasty things happen to him after that (he loses his job and he is unable to find a new one, his neighbors shunned him, all ending up in a violent confrontation). From one of Arthur Miller's self pitying, patronizing novels, the sort that gave liberalism a bad name.


I had the unlucky experience of stumbling upon a preview for this movie and thought it might be interesting. I am a fan of the two main actors, and I even find Meatloaf to be oddly appealing, but that couldn't compensate for the droning plot of this movie. This movie attempts to make social comments and be artfully intelligent. I am sure the audience gets the sociological message clearly, but has to suffer in the process. Personally, no matter how bad the movie is, I can't stop it in the middle. Something drives me to finish the worst of movies, but I often regret it. This is one of those...


Did the other reviewers watch the same movie I did? This was poorly written, poorly acted, and just overall boring. I made it well past the halfway point in the movie and then just gave up. I can't possibly imagine an ending that would have made the rest of the movie worthwhile. Don't waste your time with this dog. Seriously.


Arthur Miller has always been known as one of America's great playwrights for works such as "Death of a Salesman" and "The Crucible". "Focus" is one of his lesser known plays brought to the silver screen. However, knowing what a great playwright Arthur Miller is, I doubt that his original play was very much like the movie. The movie comes across as empty and formulaic, with William H. Macy as a non-Jew mistaken for a Jew by anti-Semitic neighbors in WWII Brooklyn. Don't get me wrong: the acting is OK, and I presume that the people behind this movie were probably trying to make a point about racism, but the movie just doesn't work. Macy, Laura Dern and David Paymer just can't create an effective story with the material here.


Why oh why did they have to try and make a sequel to one of the greatest Christmas movies of all time. The movie is a train wreck on every level and should have never been made. Randy Quaid's portrayal of cousin Eddie is an over the top caricature of his previous outings as cousin Eddie. Also, the Eddie character is not interesting enough to carry an entire movie. Even "eye candy" Sung Hi Lee could not redeem this hunk of holiday crap. Please do not waste your time on this move, just watch the original again.


I just watched National Lampoon's Christmas Vacation 2 on DVD, hoping to see something at least close to the original, great holiday comedy, 'Christmas Vacation'. I saw nothing of the kind. You can tell right from the start that this movie just wasn't going to measure up. It's too bad it has a title that links it to the original Christmas Vacation. It's really kind of sad. The film can't stand on it's own merits. I think too many people will view this film on the strength of the title and it does not come close to that level of comedy. Other than the title, there is very little connecting the movie to the original 'Christmas Vacation' and even less of a connection to Christmas at all. The comedy is very simplistic and the plot poor. Children might find some humor here but most adults would only get a chuckle here and there. This movie is a flop. Don't waste your time with it.


I am a fan of a few of the Vacation films, but when a movie franchise goes from the big screen to the TV screen, you know it's out of steam. Made for TV National Lampoon films do not do well on TV. This movie is another reason.

I think a lot of us were excited when this was coming out, but we also had to face the reality...it's a TV movie. Randy Quaid is fine as Cousin Eddie, but is better in a supporting role than the lead. Dana Barron sets history as the first actor to reprise her role as one of the Griswold kids. She is just as pretty, but it doesn't help a thin script.

Why was this movie even made? It was probably because NBC recently picked up another few years of presenting X-mas Vacation. There is nothing wrong with the acting. It's all in the script. It's just not that funny. People need to think before they write stuff like this. It is one Christmas movie I do not recommend.


I sat through all 2 hours. I do not know what was worse, the awful plot, the lame characters or the hawaiian hottie that Eddie's 11 yearold kid and 80 year old grandpa made sexual advances toward. The money spent on this was just flushed down the throne. Matty Simmons should be ashamed. The original idea for this movie was "A Swiss Family Griswold" and it somehow turned into this mess. The only bright spot is that it's ratings were so bad we will never see this on TV again. AVOID AT ALL COSTS...RENT ERNEST SAVES XMAS or something else.


I loved the original, I watch it every year. but the second is a piece of garbage and it never should have been made. The second could have worked if there was a different location. The son was not an original or didn't even act like one of Eddie's kids. Third was too smart for Eddie which downplayed his father role. None of the other kids where in it. It just could of been a lot better. I don't know why they even tried to make this movie. There was no continuncy from the first movie. I will pretend that this one doesn't even exist. It is sad that the actors didn't even see that they where made fools of. A really bad movie. I just think that i wasted an hour or more on a bad movie and i really love all of the national lampoon films.


I knew this would be one of the worst movies I could have imagined...but in just 20 short minutes it actually exceeded my low expections by being possibly THE worst movie I have ever seen.

I have already wasted too much time typing about it...trust me, it sucks.


I'm a big fan of the "Vacation" franchise, and I love Randy Quaid as Cousin Eddie, and at least a couple of the behind-the-scenes names were involved in this project (most notably Matty Simmons, who produced or executive-produced all 4 of the theatrical releases, as well as "Animal House"). For those reasons I figured this made-for-TV spin off might be worth checking out, even without Chevy Chase.

For the record, I did not expect it to be very good; I just thought it might be a slightly amusing diversion. Therefore, my high level of disappointment goes to prove just how bad this utter turd of a movie really was. It was mind-numbingly, jaw-droppingly, heart-stoppingly, head-explodingly terrible. Yet, somehow, I could not stop watching it. It's a sickness I have; I can't seem to walk out on a film or give up on a TV show before it ends. Nothing has ever made me want two hours of my life back more than this movie.


I watched about the first 30 - 40 minutes of this movie on television the other night and can agree that this is by far the worst of the series. Not any of it is funny, even Randy Quaid can't save this mess. Eric Idle wasn't funny in N.L. Euro. Vacation, and he's even worse here. The only funny scene is where they're at the airport and some guy dressed as Santa walks by the camera yelling "Did anybody lose this?" as he holds up a prosthetic leg...

1/2 a star out of ****


Absolutely the worst experience I have ever been through. I think my eyes started bleeding. I actually got sick the night after watching this. I don't even consider this a movie. Movies are supposed to be worthwhile and entertaining. This fails horribly. I could not make it through the entire film, so because the ending could be greatest phenomenon in motion picture history, this gets a 1 for that small chance. Otherwise It would be a flat 0.

I can't see how National Lampoon, or let alone any organization, would sponsor this atrocity. Renting this DVD is currently one of the worst mistakes of my life. Only watch this if you want to make ever other movie you will ever watch seem great.

Without question this is the worst movie I have ever seen.


I can't believe I bought this movie on DVD. I don't even remember it being shown on TV last year. Why in the world couldn't they have just done a real sequel to one of the best Christmas movies ever made? Damn and Randy Quaid looks like he's been on the same drugs as Jerry Lewis. I didn't know about this movie until I bought it tonight and thought I would check it out on IMDb and see how it was rated. Boy did I make a mistake. If your reading this review be warned stay away from it and just stick to the first Christmas Vacation. Well at least I didn't pay more then 10 bucks for it. Maybe I can trade it in and get half of that back at Tower Records. Then again maybe not. PS I still haven't watched it yet, my DVD player went on the fritz tonight watching another wonderful movie, The Chronicles of Riddick (Unrated Director's Cut) woo freaking hoo.


I was shocked at how bad it was and unable to turn away from the disaster. This made 'Major League II' and 'Blues Brothers 2000' Oscar-worthy in comparison.

I have tried to remember watching anything as bad as this in my life and was unable to come up with anything even close.


God bless Randy Quaid...his leachorous Cousin Eddie in Vacation and Christmas Vacation hilariously stole the show. He even made the awful Vegas Vacation at least worth a look.

I will say that he tries hard in this made for TV sequel, but that the script is so NON funny that the movie never really gets anywhere. Quaid and the rest of the returning Vacation vets (including the orginal Audrey, Dana Barron) are wasted here. Even European Vacation's Eric Idle cannot save the show in a brief cameo....

Pathetic and sad...actually painful to watch....Christmas Vacation 2 is the worst of the Vacation franchise.


This movie was awful. It centered too much around Eddie, Clark Griswald's brother-in-law. Eddie works much better when changing good quips such as in "Christmas Vacation" and "Vacation".

I really don't understand how a movie like this would be given the thumbs up. Now, don't get me wrong, I like Randy Quaid, but just felt this movie was totally wrong for him and for the character in general. This movie leaves much to be desired and really needed some bigger name actors.


Note, I only saw approximately the last half of this movie, so feel free to take my review with whatever grain of salt you deem appropriate, that being said, seeing what I saw was more than enough to make me quite convinced that a one-star rating for this is enough.

In short, it's a dismal-plot slaughter of the wonderful precursor (NL Christmas Vacation) with Chevy Chase, only it doesn't have Chevy Chase in it, and it takes place in a generic tropical island, essentially with no connection to Christmas at all.

Ol' Chevy probably didn't want in because the plot is that devoid of actual fun, instead they got the screwy Cousin Eddie, who, again, was great in the original, but in this he is just over the top, and an extremely poor basis for any movie considering the plot and acting. The attempts at humor are generic to a degree where even contemporary television comedy trumps it, and considering that this is supposed to be comedy, I doubt I need to say more.

This is not to be seen for its qualities, for it has none, but for it's failings and again, how Hollywood is spilling it's life's blood of the past in the pursuit of a quick buck.

I think I'll watch the original before the upcoming Christmas season just to try to regain my childhood innocence, from a lost time when motion pictures were more than just high-budget, but mindless, garbage.


I was out-of-town, visiting an old friend. After dinner, talking, he expressed some reservations about his daughter's boy friend. She's 15, beautiful, smart, athletic, and the young man is also from an excellent family, nice, also athletic (if not as smart). I told him he might just be feeling the normal fatherly concerns; however, a few minutes later the young man arrived, with his DVD of this flick, which he had apparently been anxious for some time to share with the others.

These folks have a bona fide home theater set-up, with a screen something in excess of 4 feet, and the two young folks preceded to view it, while the young swain proceeded to extol its virtues almost frame-by-frame.

I saw enough in a few moments (and with some fascination in its awfulness) to endorse all of the most critical comments I've seen in scanning some here.

I told my friend I wouldn't go so far as to disqualify the young suitor solely on the basis of his liking this opus -- but it certainly seems to warrant his bearing close watch.

Some flicks are so-bad-they're-good: the classic "Plan 9 from Outer Space;" and, in my opinion, the wonderfully awful Bruce Jenner/Village People work, "Can't Stop the Music."

However, this one remains firmly simply in the awful category.

Second/third/fourth "bananas" -- even the best of these (e.g. Tim Conway, Don Knotts, everybody with Seinfeld) have great difficulty in carrying a later starring series (or, as here, film). And these were great supporting characters in their original situations.

The "Eddie" character, really at about the 5th- or 6th-banana level in the prior Griswald movies, and never added a whole lot to these, in my opinion. Randy Quaid is a capable actor who has delivered some good performances. His contribution to the prior "Vacation" pic's was average, at best. Both he and the other cast members, many of whom have done some good work in the past, accomplished nothing for their efforts here, except to derive a few years' house payments or some IRA contributions.

This whole presentation --- story, performances (from lead to support) couldn't be worse.


Who gave these people money to make a movie? There was nothing funny about it. The fact that the farting dog was the funniest thing about this piece of sickness says it all. First of all, it has nothing to do with Christmas, it just took the name and counted on all those people who liked the Chevy Chase original. They took Randy 'I have no talent, I m just a fat and sweaty pig' Quaid (the only wrong thing about part 1) and made a 'movie' about him...There are only morons in his family, but not the 'aren't they cute' kinda moronic, but the 'don t touch me' kinda moronic. Watching this pile of dirt helps you hope that everyone who takes part in it DIES! They didn't even bother to get the effects in order...when they re on the boat, the only thing that moves is the fake background...when pigface Quaid is in the water you can tell by the lighting that it's in a studio. This movie was sexist (uncle Nick), racist (uncle Nick) and should never have been made..never...throwing the money into a volcano would have had so much more use.

Well I hope I reached some of you...Nobody warned me and now I m scarred for life Merry F*cking Christmas


It'll be a blue Christmas indeed if you subject you're family to this. I loved the original movie, and this one was not worthy of being its sequel. Actually, for all intents and purposes, it is not its sequel. Only one character from the original cast returns. Granted, that character happened to be the hilarious cousin Eddie, but he simply is not hilarious being the protagonist of a movie. His niche is that of the wacky relative who performs zany antics--alongside Chevy Chase. Chevy Chase was needed in this film for it to be a success, and he definitely was not there. As far as I am concerned, a movie is not a "Vacation" movie unless good ole' Clark Griswold is at the helm.


I watched this movie last night, and let me say, it's the absolute worst thing I have ever seen. The entire film is a train wreck, and it's not the actors. It is the horrible script.

** Spoilers ** Alright, Eddie loses his job to a monkey. His nerdy son is disappointed. The bathroom goes crazy.

He gets a free vacation. He goes along with Uncle Nick and the original Audry. Their boats crashes. They stay on an island. They are stupid and don't even bother to look at the nearby hotel.

OK, so that's that. What makes this movie pathetic is the humor. It is so horrid, hillybillyish, and stupid, you can't even laugh. ANd it's not stupid funny humor either. I couldn't laugh the entire thing.


Obviously with this film going straight to DVD I wasn't expecting a lot but this film is so unfunny it is unbelievable. The only part of the film that you actually may find remotely funny is before they even get to the island, where Eddie's son is blasted out of the bathroom by a jet of water and then that's it! Why do they bother at all? The first Christmas Vacation with Chevy Chase was brilliant and hilarious. This is not. They rely on jokes concerning a dog with flatulence, and a character called Uncle Nick who is about 80 and keeps trying to get his way with beautiful women. When they approach the island on the boat, the island in the background just looks so fake and Randy Quaid although funny in the previous film, just overacts and seems like he's trying too hard to be funny. You have been warned!


This has got to be the worst piece of crap I have ever seen. Randy Quaid funny as a supporting actor in the original, but not as the leading. Too much Eddie. The original is a classic. Like the original, the supporting actor carried the show. Ed Asner was very funny. He is the Eddie of Christmas Vaction 2! How come Snots still looks the same after all those years and everyone else in the original looks 14 years older. After 15 minutes of watching this movie I don't believe I had even laughed yet. The island thing just didn't work. If it wasn't for the good looking South Pacific female guide on the island the movie would have been a total loss. I sat on this review for a week and yes, I still think the movie should never have been made. Lets hope there is not a THIRD!

Shawn Gearin


To quote Clark Griswold (in the original Christmas Vacation): "WORSE? How could things get any worse? Take a look around here, Ellen. We're at the threshold of hell." Little did Chevy Chase know that he was describing the "sequel" to one of his best films. Christmas Vacation II sets a new high (or maybe it should be LOW) in bad movies. My wife bought this DVD thinking it would actually be a sequel to the original, but we were severely disappointed. This film is LAME. It bears no resemblance to the original, is an absolute waste of film, and an embarrassment to the otherwise good actors who had the misfortune to be part of it. It must have set a record on IMDb for the most bad reviews. I really think we have a good case to win a class action lawsuit to recover the money we consumers wasted on this movie.


OK...this MAY contain Spoilers...but who really cares? Do not, if you value the seconds in your life, waste your time on this pile of garbage. There is not one redeeming quality in this movie...and I say that as a full fan of the Vacation Series of movies. I LOVED the Cousin Eddie character from the other Vacation movies...but he only works well as a supporting character. Do I blame Randy Quaid for the failure of this movie? Not at all. I think he's a great actor...but this film lacks any cohesion...the pacing is off...it's just plain unfunny. And the actor who plays the "Third"...Jake Thomas...was just awful, more than likely due to a real lack of direction. I don't know why...but his whole character creeped me out.

Some people say that this is a horrible movie because Chevy Chase and Beverly D'Angelo aren't in it...that has nothing to do with it. The script, directing, acting...special effects...everything is a train wreck. With Orphans. And kittens. Oh...and the Train ran over some old people too.

Please, whatever you do...stay away from this filth! I call it filth because it dirties the name of the Vacation Franchise.


I cannot believe that the actors agreed to do this "film". I could not stand to even watch it for very long for fear of losing I.Q. points for each passing second. I guess that nobody at the network that aired this dribble watched it before putting it on. IMDB ratings only go as low 1 for awful, it's time to get some negative numbers in there for cases such as these.


**WARNING** MISERABLE MOVIE **WARNING** The day before Christmas eve, some nut case decided he'd entertain us by sending this movie as "entertainement" on TV. What in Gods name was he thinking?

This movie is filled with awful humor, despicable acting, lousy jokes and a disaster of a plot line. Randy Quaid plays the idiotic role as Cousin Eddie Johnson. Eddie is a brain dead person, who's incapable of even the simplest tasks. He was fired because he was dumb as a brick, but the company he worked for was sorry for it so they sent him and his family on a vacation. But being as stupid as he is, he managed to make the vacation into a disaster.

All-in-all it's the worst movie I've seen, and I have nightmares still over the miserable acting and the even more miserable jokes in this movie. It's so sad you ALMOST have to see it... But don't. The nightmares I have are far worse than any other nightmares you will ever have. Trust me... I hate this movie so bad because of it's acting, the humor, the "jokes" and the story. The only good thing was the nice scenery.

Well It's my opinion, and I surely hope everyone agrees with me...


National Lampoon's Christmas Vacation 2: Cousin Eddie's Island Adventure (2003) Randy Quaid, Miriam Flynn, Dana Barron, Jake Thomas, Sung Hi Lee, Eric Idle, Fred Willard, Ed Asner, D: Nick Marck. Embarrassing direct-to-video flop has oafish Cousin Eddie and family on an expenses-paid vacation to the South Pacific by his boss, hoping the dunce won't sue his company after being bitten by a smarter lab monkey! Idiotic spin off can't measure up to any of the Vacation films (even European Vacation!), with a question of whether or not the filmmakers thought the script was actually funny. Not even Quaid, Willard, or Asner can make it remotely watchable. 83 min., Not rated. *


When i found out there was a Christmas Vacation 2, I couldn't wait to buy the DVD. I sent off my money and watched it as soon as it came through the letter box. I love all the national lampoons films with Chevy chase in it, and I bet he was glad he wasn't in this one!. I couldn't believe how bad this was, you would think it was impossible not to laugh at a national lampoons film, but believe me it is! . This film probably looked like a good idea on paper having cousin Eddie as the main character, he started to get on my nerves from early on in the film, and became totally unfunny by the middle of the film, and by the end of the film i had gone brain dead and couldn't remember what had happened! .


Makes the fourth theatrical release (the one National Lampoon took its name OFF of) look like a comedy classic. A complete mistake and a sad attempt to capitalize on a once-proud franchise. Painfully unfunny and unwatchable...even for a TV movie! The Cousin Eddie character has become progressively less amusing, from the original Vacation when it was fresh and unique, through Christmas Vacation when it was starting to wear a bit thin, to Vegas Vacation where it was actually annoying to see come on-screen (but, in fairness, there were a LOT of things that were annoying to see come on-screen in that movie!). But this attempt to move the character up to lead status is unfortunate to say the least. The Vacation movies themselves met an ugly death in Las Vegas, and this hope at reviving even the thinnest thread of the series for television was thoroughly misguided. Chevy Chase and company put together a great trilogy back when he was in his prime; now let's just pull the plug and let the title rest in peace. (One tiny note of interest: The original Audrey Griswold--Dana Barron, the first of four actresses to play the part, including Juliette Lewis--returns to the role 20 years later! One is left only to wonder...WHY?)


Sorry Randy. I love your comedy but in this case you really laid a 'Golden Turkey' egg.

The plot was thinner than a single layer of my skin, the acting more wooden than a Giant Redwood and I think the direction was non existent.

There certainly appeared to be pathetic attempts at take-offs of other films, Jaws and European Vacation to name but two.

If memory serves me right Eric Idle played the same type of character in Nat Lamp European Vacation, but much better.

I am wondering if Chevy Chase and Beverley D'Angelo were approached to make this sequel. If so, they certainly knew what they were doing when they turned their parts down.

In my opinion no one can better Chevy and Beverley in their roles as the Griswolds and Randy Quaid complemented them admirably in the earlier movies.

Randy Quaid should have quit National Lampoon whilst he was ahead.


The only reason to see this film is Sung Hi Lee, the stunning model/actress from Korea who plays "Muka Laka Miki" (give me a break) in this otherwise crappy movie.

She is given a fairly substantial part in this film and seems to handle it well, though none of the parts is really interesting or well written. Even for a National Lampoon's movie, it's really stupid. Stupid humor is one thing, but just stupid is another. I may have laughed once, and that was probably just me being polite.

Warning: Watching this movie may be bad for your health on two counts: 1) It, like, totally sucks. 2) Sung Hi Lee is so freaking gorgeous she just might blow your brains out of the back of your head upon first sight.

So don't say I didn't warn you...


I am speechless. Matty Simmons has managed to do something I thought impossible. He has made "The Harlem Globetrotters on Gilligan's Island" look like "Citizen Kane." Painful cannot even begin to describe this piece of... I don't know. Mind you, the premise sounded funny, but now that I've seen it, it's funny in the way that dropping an anvil on your scrotum is funny.

I won't bother to describe the premise, as the title says it all, if only to say I don't think there was literally one funny thing in this film, not one, not even the monkey bite. How could one of the funniest characters in the "Vacation" franchise, the sleazy white trash Eddie (Randy Quaid), be made so horrifically unfunny ? I never felt so much sympathy for an actor in my life. I equally pitied the other actors participating in this "comedic" atrocity, Miriam Flynn (Catherine, Eddie's long suffering, but sunny-dispositioned wife), Dana Barron (the original Audrey Griswold), Fred Willard, and the stunning Sung Hi Lee (perhaps the only reason to watch the film, if only with the sound off), save for that old Commie, Ed Asner (Uncle Nick), he had it coming. Alas, the audience didn't. I only say "thank heavens" that Chevy Chase, who has been in a slump for years, steered clear of this diarrhea splatter, it's the smartest career move he ever made.

I don't know if you folks are religious like I am, but I know I'll be praying to the Lord tonight to add 2 hours (if not 2 years) to my life to make up for the time I spent in front of the television that I'll never get back otherwise.

Hot Water Burn Baby says ZERO out of 10 Stars (If you take a few hits off the bong AND drink the water, maybe 1/10th of a star out of 10)


I'm guessing that the folks talking up this drivel are cronies of the director or something. This is bad, and not in the Michael Jackson song kind of way. To compare the pacing of this movie to the progress of a snail would be to insult the snail. This movie limps along for what seems like an eternity, all to introduce us to some un-scary zombie kids with silly makeup and some sort of vendetta, or thirst for blood, or whatever. Believe me, you won't care. The thought alone that Mom would move her two daughters into this dilapidated and FILTHY home is absurd. And worse, I found myself simply not caring. Backstory about the zombie kids? Snore. Endangerment of Mom and/or daughters? Don't care.

In short, WOW was this dull. Don't bother.


Even with the low standards of a dedicated horror fan, I found this film to be beyond awful. It was a huge disappointment since it was featured as one of the eight Horrorfest films. I can only hope the other seven were better. I was actually embarrassed for the friends I was able to convince to see this, and these are the same friends I made watch the remake of The Wicker Man. It has every cliché in the book. In fact, it went out of its way to include them. Let's start with the characters. Instead of one young damsel in distress, we get three: the single, hot mom with two daughters a blossoming yet brainless teenager and a cute yet simultaneously creepy little girl that you just know is going to have 'special' skills including supernatural knowledge and the ability to communicate with the dead. The little girl is the same one that was in the remake of The Amityville Horror. She was a little annoying but not nearly as irritating Dakota Fanning.

Overall, these characters seemed like escapees from a LifeTime movie. I thought perhaps horror movies had moved on from scenes where the female characters go to bed in full makeup and run around in the dark announcing their presence to anyone with ears, but not this one. I also find it inconceivable that none of them could be bothered to secure the front door from arbitrarily opening day and night. To give you an idea about how uninvolved I was with these characters, I spent most of my time thinking about how cold it must have been on the set because everyone was in a coat even in their houses and how white their teeth were.

Despite all the formulaic plot machinations, the film does not build any suspense at all except to wonder when it will be over. There is more atmosphere at the local Giant in the middle of the most mundane of weekday afternoons. As for the dialogue, I could have sampled quotes from ten other films and cobbled together better, more believable discourse. The gore level, the eye candy for a horror fan, was minimal at best. Without their tiny weapons, the 'zombies' were not menacing at all. You could probably drop kick a couple of them across the room.

What really kills it is its banality. Horror films, more than any other genre, cannot survive uninspired mediocrity. Give me a horror movie that is comically inept or outrageously over the top with gore. I can even take the new ones with their cringe inducing torture. Every once in a while I'd appreciate a truly frightening one, anything but this.


I saw Wicked Little Things as part of the "8 Films To Die For" Horrorfest, and this was the only film that disappointed me. To wit, a mom, her little girl and her teenage daughter settle down in an abandoned house in the Pennsylvania mountains. Every night, however, the vengeful spirits of children killed in a coal mine run about and slaughter anyone they find.

I guess the director was banking on his viewers being repulsed that children would be capable of pickaxe murders and eating human flesh (of which there are lavish close-ups, as a nice homage to George Romero) because the film just isn't scary otherwise. Simply put, there are far too many establishing shots of the evil kids jogging to their next murder site. If someone's gonna get it in the barn, there will be a shot of the kids ARRIVING at the barn (oh the suspense) and then moving in for the kill.

Come to think of it, why do the kids suddenly walk SO SLOWLY when they corner their prey? And not that I have any experience in this, but I think a shotgun blast will throw a child A LOT FARTHER than this film implies...? Nor does it help that the mom is one of the worst parents I've ever seen in any film. "The lock on the front door is busted"? You have an EIGHT-YEAR-OLD DAUGHTER in the WOODS with BEARS and MOUNTAIN LIONS! FIX IT, you MORON!!! Plus, Mom and her oldest daughter look waaaay too close together in age- even for a teen pregnancy, and there's a pretty unbelievable death which involves sneaking up on somebody trying to push a car out of the mud with their butt.

I'm giving this a 3 because it tried. As a splatter film it's not bad. But for good scares, go elsewhere.


In 1913, in Carlton Mine, Addytown, Pennsylvania, the cruel owner of a mine uses poor children in the exploration and after an explosion, a group of children is buried alive. On the present days, Karen Tunny (Lori Heuring) has just lost her husband after a long period of terminal disease when the family savings have been spent in the treatment. Without any money, she moves with her daughters Sarah (Scout Taylor-Compton) and Emma (Chloe Moretz) to an old house in the mountains that belonged to her husband. Karen is advised by her neighbors to stay at home in the night, and Sarah hears that there are zombies in the area. When Emma becomes friend of Mary, he mother believes she is an imaginary friend. However, when Sarah's friends are attacked and eaten alive by zombie children and Emma vanishes, Karen and Sarah chase her nearby the mine.

"Wicked Little Things" is not a totally bad movie: the acting is good; the make-up is creepy; and the cinematography and the music score are excellent. However, the story, and consequently the screenplay, are very weak, indeed a bad collection of clichés. The beginning is reasonable, with a widow moving to a house in a remote location because the family spent all their resources with the illness of the patriarch. But when she arrives, coincidently the little zombies attack people without any consequences, for example, families do not search the missing persons. Then the wicked Mr. Carlton comes to the place with the most disgusting attitudes, a typical clichés that he will die in the end. There is no explanation why the children attacked innocent people and why they should stop after killing Mr. Carlton. When Sarah is running away with her mother and says that she is tired and cannot run anymore, it is one the most stupid lines that I have ever seen in a horror movie. My vote is four.

Title (Brazil): "Zombies"


If you described any of the scenes; nightmares of children murdering you in your sleep, your infant daughter talking to ghosts, searching for your lost child in an abandoned mine at night, so petrified with fear that you can't move even though the blood from a murder victim is dripping onto you from the floor above  then I'd say you had a horror movie. But some how 'Wicked Little Things' just wasn't scary. I am a horror fan and I loved the location, the plot in principal and I liked the three leading ladies. I didn't want to see them come to harm, I wanted the 'bad guy' to get his just desserts, the rest of the cast are always simply cannon fodder so I was indifferent either way with them and it played out every cliché in the book - even down to the torch battery running out in the pitch dark just as you start to here whispering voices closing in on you.

I would still recommend that you watch it, but unless you are new to horror movies or under 12 years, you will have seen it all before.


Wicked Little Things has an excellent synopsis: empty house beside abandoned mine in woods with tragic past; family moves into house and strange things begin to happen; little creepy children begin to pop up here and there doing creepy-little-children-things. But that is where the cleverness and potential fun ends. This group of kids was sealed in the mine many decades earlier, and now appear roving the woods (poor make-up) with weapons looking for flesh to eat. Oh I get it, this is a ghost-zombie movie. Hmmm....while I can appreciate someone trying something new with this genre, this just didn't work. What was the children's motivation in seeking to devour flesh? Why did they need weapons? Did anyone else imagine the filmmakers all gathered around the daily footage giggling because they felt this was going to be a cool/scary movie? I found that after thirty minutes I felt the familiar resignation that I had just wasted my time on another modern crap-fest. While the acting was good, and the setting/cinematography of good quality as well, the script itself suffered from what seems to be a lack of knowledge about the supernatural horror genre altogether. A bunch of kids walking down the mall is scarier than this pack of poorly disguised rodents.

This movie is not scary, and while I can appreciate the story, perhaps have even enjoyed it if I had read it instead of watched it, I still have to say that Wicked Little Things is more accurately called Wicked Little Turd.


The concept of this movie is pretty compelling: zombie children climbing out of an abandoned mine to seek revenge for their deaths in the backwoods of Pennsylvania. Cool. The problem I had with the movie is the lack of creativity when dealing with the zombies. The makers could have really spiced this film up with some terror-like imagery a la "The Ring" such as stop action, reverse camera walking or stuff like that. When the zombie children are strolling through the woods they look like a bunch of 9 year-olds walking to a playground in West Philadelphia. Instead of pick axes and shovels they could have easily been carrying baseball bats and gloves. Why would I fear these little kids? Anyone could just run away in a straight line to safety. Also, who in their right mind would have stayed one night with their children in that creepy, run-down house? The moment I opened that front door and looked around I would have said, "Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Son, go start the car. I'm going around back to pee on a bush and then we're out of here." Totally unbelievable movie. Don't waste your time.


First off, I'am a horror fan. But this "Tobe Hooper" production (come on, the man from the original Texas Chainsaw and Poltergeist !!) was below standards, even for a fan. The acting was not bad at all, some characters were unbelievable, but the leading ladies were OK. The story was something we've seen a hundred times already, without any surprising twist or whatever. Never exciting or intense, and do not count on any special effects besides blood splashing up. The scary zombie kids are white paled faces with dark eyes and that is it.. That might have worked in the early 70's but not now. Director J.S. Cardone didn't do a good job in keeping the suspense, half way thru there is a risk you will fall asleep. My vote is based primarily on the leading acting, but this could have easily have been called Children Of The Corn 8: From The Corn Fields to the Mines... Enough said..


All I could think while watching this movie was: "Will it ever end?!" It was unbearably boring to watch. I was wishing I could just turn it off, but I wanted to do this review justice so I fought the good fight and withstood the torture of watching this movie all the way through so that you, the good reader, need not bear that pain also.

This movie sounds like it has a great premise if you read the premise on paper. However, the actual movie does not deliver on this premise at all.

The opening scene features a mineshaft in the early 1900's, where they are forcing kids to carry dynamite into the tunnels that aren't big enough for the adults to fit into. This seems to be setting up the premise for an interesting movie. But after 4 minutes, it becomes clear that is not the case. The adults who committed these crimes are never punished; there is no consequences shown in the movie for their actions. The opening scene is way better than, and completely irrelevant to, the rest of the movie. The last time an opening scene misrepresented a movie so grievously was the opening scene of 28 Days Later which was the only good scene in *that* whole movie. Wicked Little Things/Zombies (a movie so crappy they changed the title to try to disguise it's crappiness and sell it again) is exactly the same in this regard. The opening scene is the only watchable scene in the whole movie.

Instead, the movie flashes forward to present-day. A single mother and her two bratty, foul-mouthed kids. Right here is when it would have been wise to press the STOP button and never go near the movie again.

In the first hour, the zombie kids are barely even seen. They get maybe 3 minutes of screen-time, total. All they do is kill a pig, that's it. The rest of the hour is spent showing the dumb mother and her dumb kids buy things at the local store, wander around the forest, and have inane conversations with each other. The dumb teenage daughter goes and hangs out with some other idiot teenagers and smokes weed with them.

There would be no reason to care at all if the zombie kids dispatched anyone in this movie. Every single character is both dumb & annoying, with no redeeming qualities at all. Not to mention one-dimensional and clichéd.

This movie would have been *vastly improved* if the mother and her dumb kids were dispatched in the first 10 minutes by the zombie kids, as they were driving up to their new house, then the end credits rolled. That right there would instantly change the score from 1/10, to 10/10. Honestly! When the dumb mother takes her eyes off the road and almost crashes into a pedestrian on the road, her daughter scolds her: "You almost killed us, mom!" Of course, anyone with common sense knows that if the mom had hit the pedestrian, it would be the pedestrian who would be dead --- not the people safely encased *inside* the car. I guess this line was put into the movie to show firsthand that the utter stupidity of the main characters knows no bounds, and runs in the family.

Wicked Little Things/Zombies runs for 1 hour and 34 minutes, but it definitely felt like 5 hours or more to me. Trying to not fall asleep was a tremendous challenge. It's not until over an hour has passed into the 1 hour and 34 minutes that the zombie children actually bother to kill any person. Then the scene shows the dumb teenagers drinking beer and making out in a car and saying lines like, "If you ever wanna get in my pants again, you better start the car and get my ass out of here right now." Seriously, that's verbatim from the movie. The teenagers are so clichéd, one-dimensional, badly-acted, dumb & annoying that when the zombie kids finally get around to hacking 3 of them up 1 hour and 5 minutes into the movie, it feels like a cause for celebration. Of course the "Princess" dumb weed-smoking foul-mouthed beer-drinking loser daughter of the main mother character gets away scott-free. What a buzzkill that was! She was on the screen longer than the others and hence the most annoying of the 4 of them, and most deserving of a pickaxe to the head. All the more reason why she should have been dispatched within the first 10 minutes, as aforementioned. To still keep her around past 1 hour and 5 minutes though, is totally inexcusable.

The reason for this of course is that feature length movies need to be padded to at least 1 hour and 30 minutes. So by keeping her alive long-past when she should be, they have an extra 27 minutes to pad the movie with her and her mother running through the woods. By 1 hour and 22 minutes in, it's the *second* time in the movie where the annoying daughter is trapped in a vehicle where the engine won't start whilst the zombie kids are coming to get her.

The zombie kids are completely generic. Never say anything. No character development at all for any of them.

In the end, all 3 of the annoying, idiotic main characters live. Which in my opinion, is the filmmakers' way of giving a final flipping the bird gesture to the viewing audience. In my opinion, the filmmakers surely know that they have bamboozled anyone who has had the great misfortune to watch the whole movie. Why not rub their faces in it by not even giving them the satisfaction of seeing any of the 3 main characters who should have been dispatched within the first 10 minutes, die.

Avoid Wicked Little Things/Zombies like the Bubonic Plague.


As someone already said the Living Dead Dolls were cute and if they came out as a new series of Wicked little things I would buy one, or two. Well basically this film was dark, not in the scary sense but in that I cant see kinda way. And it was boring. Three females in a house, the youngest told not to go into the woods under any circumstances (well that didn't sink in) and it would have been better if that advice had involved their death. And doesn't anyone do any cleaning or whitewashing or something, you would think a lot of coughing would ensue. A sexy young mum where you waste your time trying to figure her age (by my calculations 34 or 36.) And it looked like it had been longer than 20 years since someone had lived there so what was with the fathers young adult photos on much older album? I am so tired of clichés that is just lazy writing, and here they come in thick and fast. Teens getting stoned and drunk in car and well you know where that leads....death and apparent deafness too as Tim seems oblivious to his friends scream. I mean I have pushed many a car where the instructing driver did not scream and I heard them. Cliché weird man in the woods who no one believes. Plumber who has lived in them there parts for years and this is his first experience with said children, so that driving along he avoids pickaxe wielding youngster in dead of night... run him over you idiot! Cliché... roaming about in woods without a clue about where you are going, armed with knowledge that pick-axe wielding kids (yes them again) are out and about. Senseless scene the brutalising of pig... why do so many directors see no problem with animal mutilation and slaughter? I would have much rather seen the kiddies run up and bit people on the thighs than this. Zombies don't appear to have that much energy in other films.The villain well how ineffectual was he? His big part was in the shop.. tramping in and demanding to be served first. What a none eventful man he was. Why not kill him earlier, before the family got there and avoid the movie being made, or remake it differently. I give my marks to the house, the woods and the little Goth dollies I want one!


One of the few reasons to make these pointlss films is to give some actors a chance to hopefully star in better films if they're acting is any good. The only good thing in this movie is the acting, the three female leads are better than most horror films like this. There's 2 scenes that may cause an unexpected jump.

Young small children are use to crawl through holes and lay dynamite to explode mines. When one does collapse causing a cave in all the children die, becoming zombies. The adults in the mine stay dead, no reasons are given as why the children become flesh eaters. When still alive they looked terrified before the cave in, innocent, so they must become enraged at any adult which exploited them int he mines (only reason that come to mind).

A mother and her 2 daughters move into a house near the mine, along with a land devoloper who wants to build a resort and another of those creepy people who seem to know exactly what's going on yet no one believes him.

Nothing new here, you're usual clichés, predictable, a lot of negatives for this film, very few positives.


I generally love this type of movie. However, this time I found myself wanting to kick the screen. Since I can't do that, I will just complain about it. This was absolutely idiotic. The things that happen with the dead kids are very cool, but the alive people are absolute idiots. I am a grown man, pretty big, and I can defend myself well. However, I would not do half the stuff the little girl does in this movie. Also, the mother in this movie is reckless with her children, to the point of neglect. I wish I wasn't so angry about her and her actions because I would have otherwise enjoyed the flick. What a number she was, take my advise and fast forward through everything you see her do until the end. Also, is anyone else getting sick of watching movies that are filmed so dark. Anymore, one can hardly see what is being filmed. As an audience, we are impossibly involved with the actions on the screen. So then, why the hell can't we have night vision?


I really wanted to like this movie. A film with zombie children getting out of a mine to kill people at night really seemed like a great idea for a horror film. Unfortunately, the film was in the bottom 3 of films played at horror fest.

A mother and her two daughters attempt to move on after her husband/father had passed away from an illness that cost their family a lot of money. They have to adapt to their new environment. They end up struggling due to all the surroundings for different reasons.(Crazy Zombie kids go into this category) The film never gives any sentimental attachment for anyone that lives or dies, the film produces no scares or jump worthy moments, the film barely shows the children doing what they're supposed to do...Kill! With a bigger budget and a better cast this film could have hope. Until then, pass on it.

3.5/10 actually.


J.S. Cardone directed a little known 'Video Nasty' in 1982 called "The Slayer" and since then has gone on to have a hand in a handful of feature films; including the rubbish 2001 vampire movie The Forsaken. His latest feature film, Wicked Little Things, boasts a plot that sounds decent as well as a creepy looking poster that I seem to remember surfacing a couple of years ago in relation to a film that Tobe Hooper was meant to direct. Well I guess he felt that this one was too similar to his silly zombie fungus movie 'Mortuary' and so turned this one down. I don't blame him for it either. The plot focuses on a mother and her two daughters that move to an old house in the mountains that once belonged to her late husband. However, what they don't realise is that around a hundred years earlier; a group of children that were being used as miners were trapped down a mineshaft. Naturally, that's not the end of them and they managed to survive their ordeal and now prowl the area in search of revenge

The film is essentially a collection of clichés; from the youngest kid with an "imaginary friend", the mother who dismisses it and all the usual zombie rubbish. J.S. Cardone attempts to get the horror fans back on side with shocks and gory scenes (mostly involving kids) but its not enough. The story doesn't play out very well at all either and really did remind me too much of the earlier Mortuary, and that's not a good thing (although Mortuary is actually a better film than this one). The acting is nothing to write home about either; Lori Heuring is decent looking, as is eldest daughter Scout Taylor-Compton; but neither manages to provide an interesting performance. Chloe Moretz is slightly better than the usual child actor. The plot is given hardly any credibility and indeed the screenplay can't even be bothered to explain the reasons why the kids attack the locals. It all boils down to a typical and rather dull ending and overall I have to say that if you know your horror movies, then you can feel free to skip this one!


Child death and horror movies will always remain a sensitive & controversial combination and therefore it is my personal opinion that every movie that shows the courage to revolve on this topic should receive some extra attention from horror fans. Of course, like in the case of "Wicked Little Things", controversial themes don't always guarantee a good film. Despite the potentially interesting plot, the atmospheric setting and the involvement of video-nasty director J.S. Cardone ("The Slayer"), this is an uninspired and cliché-ridden film that couldn't offer a single fright or shock. After losing their husband and father, the remaining Tunny women (mother Karen and her daughters Sarah and Emma) move to a small and remote Pennsylvanian mountain town where they inherited an old, ramshackle mansion. Their new home is dangerously close to the old mine ruins where dozens of innocent children tragically lost their lives in 1913. Strange things start to happen, like young Emma befriending an (imaginary?) girl who used to live in their house, and the eerie locals seem to keep secrets from Karen and her daughters. Quickly turns out that the undead children still leave their mine-graves at night to seek vengeance on the descendants of the mine's owner Mr. Carlton, who was responsible for their deaths. "Wicked Little Things" is rather tame and extremely predictable. The script shamelessly serves one dreadful cliché after the other, like car wheels stuck in the mud at crucial times, malfunctioning flashlights and horridly broken dolls. There's very little suspense, even less gore and the make-up effects are disappointingly weak. The zombified children don't look menacing at all. Actually, they all look like miniature versions of Marilyn Manson, with their black outfits, pale faces and dark eyes. The excitement-free finale is stupid and just as derivative as the rest of this pointless production. Lori Heuring is thoroughly unimpressive in her leading role as the mother, but Scout Taylor-Compton (currently a big star thanks to the "Halloween" remake) and young Chloe Moretz are adequate as the daughters.


I can't believe that I let myself into this movie to accomplish a favor my friends ask me early this April 14, 2007. This movie certainly a pain in your ass in theater and sickly boring, I haven't even felt the gory impact of its "daunting scenes" which I deem to be complete failure to attract its audience. The worst even trampled me, cause my friend failed to come on time at the theater because she was busy assisting her boyfriend in looking for an appropriate lodge to stay in for one night. I wasn't really disappointed with that matter, but this movie is a matter indeed for me, poor plot, useless storyline, naively created and I don't know what to say anymore.

The title doesn't suggest anyway the creeps and horror it failed to overture us viewers, maybe the beating of the animals could get more the creeps if they show it in theaters the real situational play. Good luck to anyone who attempts to watch it anyway.


Having spent all of her money caring for her terminally ill spouse, recently widowed Karen Tunny (Lori Heuring) moves with her two daughters Sarah (Scout Taylor-Compton) and Emma (Chloe Moretz) to her late husband's run-down family home in rural Pennsylvania, where local legends speak of zombies who roam the woods at night.

Just seeing the names of this film's writer and director in the opening credits was enough to send shivers up my spine: Boaz Davidson is the 'genius' responsible for penning the scripts for such STV titles as Octopus 1 & 2, Spiders and Crocodile, whilst J.S. Cardone gave us the godawful 'video nasty' The Slayer and dull vampire flick The Forsaken. With such dubious talent responsible, I didn't expect much from Wicked Little things.

And having just finished the film, I'm glad I kept my expectations low.

Although the movie looks good at times, with lovely use of the eerie woodland locale, and the cast give reasonable performances given the clichéd drivel that they are working with, the plot is so laboured, poorly written, and derivative that it's impossible to be enthusiastic about. Most importantly, perhaps, the film's killers, undead children who rise each night from the mine in which they died, aren't in the least bit scary, a smudge of makeup, black contacts and some crappy joke shop scars doing very little to add to the sense of menace. Scout Taylor-Compton and company do their best to look afraid of the tiny terrors, screaming convincingly with every confrontation, but their admirable attempts to instill a sense of fear in the audience is to little avail: the little blighters just ain't got what it takes to chill the blood.

There are a few lacklustre zombie chow scenes in a futile bid to win over gore-hounds, and the final kill, which sees the victim's blood drench both Compton and Heuring, is suitably tasteless, but on the whole, Wicked Little Things (AKA Zombies in the UK) is instantly forgettable trashjust another clunker in the filmographies of Cardone and Davidson.


Wicked Little Things (known in Australia as "Zombies") is a rare find  a film that promises one thing but delivers another. It is one of the few genre films to be made by Millennium Pictures, a European film studio known for making various B-grade action films & thrillers, some featuring action star Jean-Claude Van Damme.

Karen Tunny & her two daughters Sarah & Emma arrive in the Pennsylvanian town of Addytown in order to move into a large house that Karen's late husband owned after finding a miner's deed in his effects. Once arriving, they find that the house is very old & in need of repair. But the house's condition is the least of their problems, as they discover that the area is prone to disappearances & Karen is confronted by the area's owner & ordered to move out. Once night falls, the Tunnys find out the reason behind the vanishings: a group of zombie children, killed in a mine collapse in the area more than 85 years ago, come out to kill anything that goes in the woods. With the help of a grizzled neighbour, Karen attempts to end the curse before her & her children become the next victims.

I bought the DVD expecting a film with flesh-eating zombies, but was let down by one thing: the film is more akin to a ghost story than your usual zombie flick, with the dead children being the embodiment of a curse that haunts the woods, taking their revenge on anything that moves around at night (although the internal logic is somewhat flawed  the children can only be appeased by the sacrifice of animals & are repelled by blood wards on doors in the same manner that vampires are repelled by garlic & mirrors  aren't these kids supposed to be zombies?). The plot as such would not be a problem & would actually be entertaining, but the main problem is that the producers adapted a script with the intention of making a zombie film, only to fall flat on their faces with this effort.

As such, a film like this would be okay as a ghost story but, due to a poor script, becomes nothing more than an entirely routine effort. The film's greatest strength is the acting, with the cast giving better performances than the film deserves. Of particular note is Scout Taylor-Compton, who does her role quite well  it's a shame she ruins her genre cred with a very poor performance in the HALLOWEEN remake (or maybe it's just Rob Zombie's script).


This starts off in Pennsylvania in 1913. A bunch of kids are killed in a mine explosion purposely set off by the mine's owner. Cut to 2006. Recently widowed Karen (Lori Heuring), her teenage daughter Sarah (Scout Taylor-Compton) and little girl Emma (Chloe Moretz) move to a remote house located near that mine. What they don't know is the ghosts of the little kids haunt the woods and kill anyone who's around after dark.

Slow and boring "horror" movie. The premise is obvious and has been done to death already. Also there are huge gaps in logic in the story. It's never made clear why these kids just kill anybody or why they EAT the bodies afterwards (Yes--it's shown). They're dead already--why do they need food? And why haven't they gotten the main villain in the story long before? He was around the area. Why pick this time to attack him? Also the characters aren't the least bit likable. Sarah comes across the worst. It has a few saving graces. The location is beautiful and eerie at the same time, some of the killings were VERY bloody and brutal and the kids themselves looked spooky silently walking through the woods at night. But, all in all, I was bored and fighting to stay awake. You can skip this one.


This movie is very much like every other modern horror movie. It's predictable in the way it gets build up and progresses and just never succeeds in bringing anything original or shocking to the screen. That's really the biggest disappointment of the movie, that overall still had a promising main concept for a movie of its sort.

You can call this movie a big walking modern horror movie cliché. It has all of the elements in it that make modern horror movies often not so very great ones to watch. One of these aspects is a moaning and very naive little kid. Why do they keep putting this sort of stuff in movies? Same goes for the sort of drama aspects, that involves the family. It just doesn't work out for the movie and is far from interesting or effective. It often instead causes the movie to drag in parts and become an annoying one to watch.

So it has all of the clichés present but it also doesn't succeed at bringing any of these clichés well to the screen. As an horror movie this simply is a very poor one. It doesn't handle its horror or tension very well. For the fans of the genre there is very little to enjoy. The movie its story isn't too well connected and build up within the movie. Too often the movie sleeps in at parts and it doesn't ever allow its horror to fully kick in.

The movie is also often way too dark (no doubt as an attempt to hide its fairly low budget) and it shows very little gore as well, mostly due to the fact that you simply can not always see things so very well.

You can just tell by looking at this movie that director J.S. Cardone doesn't has much talent for the genre and doesn't know how to handle its present ingredients properly. He did some attempts in the past but all of his movies have failed so far. he just keeps trying unfortunately. Who knows, perhaps with the right people behind the camera's (like Tobe Hooper, who was initially attached to direct) this movie still could had been something decent.

It's a poorly cast movie, with mostly big unknowns in it. Biggest name of the movie is Ben Cross but his role is just way too small and in a way also not really relevant enough for the movie and its story. It didn't even seemed like he had much fun playing.

Just skip it.

4/10


Director J.S. Cardone presents something a little scary and a little creepy, but nothing more. A widowed mother Karen Tunny(Lori Heuring)inherits a home in the Pennsylvania mountains; so she takes her two daughters and moves into the sprawling estate in what seems the middle of nowhere. But it is somewhere, somewhere ninety some odd years ago a tragic mining accident claimed the lives of numerous children who were forced to labor in the dark and dank. The area and especially the Tunny estate seems to be haunted by the spirits of the tiny little wicked souls. The legend is the screaming children come out in the moonlight to seek their revenge; and you better believe it. Also in the cast: Ben Cross, Scout Taylor-Compton, Chloe Moretz, Julie Rogers and Geoffrey Lewis.


... And boy is it soft

I saw this on cable channel Bravo one Saturday night and here in Britain we often have these dire " Erotic " soft core movies turning up late at night on Bravo . This one follows a WEIRD SCIENCE type plot of a couple of college geeks building a virtual reality headset that makes you have sexual fantasies .

When you`ve seen one of these movies you`ve seen them all with a bunch of bimbos looking like they`re advertising silicone implants . Come on I`ve actually seen breasts in real life ( I`m sure some other of us have too ) and they wobble around unlike here where they defy the laws of , if not physics than at least gravity . The sex scenes are these tedious affairs where a well buffed geezer rubs himself against his co-star without any dialogue or sound apart from some muzak and when they climax it looks like they`re both having a bad attack of constipation . The girls themselves are very pretty especially Brandy Davis and Nikki Fritz but they`re wasted in these type of soft core movies

And if it`s fantasy you`re after I recommend the LORD OF THE RINGS trilogy


The main character of this sex-filled drivel, Mel (Ethan Hunt), notes on several occasions, "She deserves better than this!" The "she" he refers to is Ginger, played by beautiful Brandy Davis, who indeed DOES deserve better than this. Brandy deserves better than this film, its lame script, and perverted Mel. A guy who gets off at watching his dream girl have sex with another man, even in virtual world, seriously does not deserve her AT ALL. An A- for the simulated sex scenes, an F for the script.


With Hong Kong heart-throb Andy Lau and veteran star Ching Wan Lau, "Aau Chin" has everything going for it for the beginning part of the movie, unfortunately, the movie falls apart at the end.

Andy Lau plays a sophisticated thief who only has 4 weeks to live, but still has one thing unfinished... He pulls an elaborated scheme tricking the police into helping him... However, the police is hot on his tail.... Can he pull it off before being caught?

The build up of the movie is good. Bits of pieces of clues are left behind for the audiences to try to guess at the real intention. Unfortunately, the build up leads to a disappointed final showdown. It feels as if in the middle of the script, the writer has changed and that all the build-up becomes disconnected.

A 3/10 ....


I don't know if this exceptionally dull movie was intended as an unofficial sequel to 'The French Connection", but it does have many of the same drawbacks: the script is so confusing that the viewer remains uninvolved and feels left out of the picture, and the direction is so cold, so lacking in energy, that even the great chase sequence can't liven things up. (*1/2)


My mom would not let me watch this film when I was in grade 2, because she said it was too violent. Well, years later, and the only reason I remember this film is because of my mom, I stayed up and watch it on PBS. Well, maybe the build up after all these year lead to the big disapointment of this film, but I found it lame. It did not age well, and this made the acting choppy, huge unbelievable holes in the script, but there is a few cool scenes like car chases, and a big gun fight. I will not stay up for this film again.


Well, I notice IMDB has not offered any plot info...that's because it's not possible to do that without sounding vile and disgusting...because that's what this movie is...VILE AND DISGUSTING !! I watched it because I am a humongous Fan of Chris Noth, whom I have met in person and he is a great guy...but if I ever meet him again, I will have no qualms about asking him whatever posessed him to star in something so awful. He plays a former child prodigy who is now a brilliant doctor, who spends his spare time running over small children with his car, with the intent of maiming and crippling them...this is not a "spoiler", because all this is made very clear from the begining...sickening enough?? Oh, it gets better...he is manipulated into doing this, by his incestuous sister, who threatens to with-hold sexual favors from him if their latest victim fails to die...even Clive Barker couldn't write anything so hideous. Please, if you want to see Chris Noth in something worthy of his talent, rent "Teddy Roosevelt and The Roughriders"


Awful in a bad/good way...this movie has officially become the worst "made for TV movie" in my book...except for the camp value it offers, I give it a 1 in quality and a 10 for the camp value. Suggestion: Watch with friends, champagne and plenty of popcorn...you'll want to throw some at the screen! Preferably friends who like Chris Noth from his 'Sex in the City days'...this movie is dreadfully funny. This is definitely the lowest point in the careers of all cast members...honestly, I don't know how they controlled the laughter as the lines were delivered! Daniel J. Travanti is absolutely pathetic. EVERYONE participated in the school of over acting; and poor Joan Van Ark, I believe she was the only one taking this theater of the absurd seriously...she is credited as a producer though. Her "Mom" jeans and bad plastic surgery are scene stealer's. This movie also crosses the oh so delicate line of social incorrectness when they introduce a mentally challenged character into the plot. This is an obscure movie showing on Lifetime listed as {With Harmful Intent}....has anyone else had the pleasure?


We have given this film one star for awful, however, it really depends on how you look at it. We are currently watching this on Channel 5 at 3.30am, and we haven't stopped laughing, so perhaps we could give it a 10, just for the entertainment value. Right from the outset, with the 'manic' thoughts of the stalker being relayed in comic fashion, we were laughing. Is it me or does that chick from Knott's Landing look like one of the characters from the Dark Crystal.

I'm not going to spoil it for you, however, you would have to be pretty stupid not to see it coming, i don't think its clever enough for double bluffs.

This has to be the worst/best film we have ever seen, if we'd been playing the 'spot the cliché' drinking game, then we be wasted by now.


American Tourist on package tour in Asia suffering recent bereavement decides to break law by: 1 Ignoring curfew; 2 Joining revolutionary army; 3 Possessing and using illegal firearm...... etc etc What is meant to be a political and educational statement about the so called atrocities of a military dictatorship in Asia ends up as a "How To" travel guide for disillusioned Americans....especially those who wish to protest that the water in the hotel does not work.... Regrettably the authors of this silly yarn have no clue about Asia...nor it seems in writing sensible dialogue... example:...our human-rights heroine searching desperately for medicine in the furthest outreaches of the Asian jungle miles from anywhere comes across a peasant and asks: "Excuse me-does this town have a pharmacy?"...Well....those who know something about the Asian jungle will appreciate how ludicrous that scenario really is.... Mind you I was recently in the Thai jungle and an American asked me.... "excuse me....do you know where is MacDonalds?" This movie is meant to be a serious drama but ends up as a parody and rip-off of all those "killing fields" type of films designed to confirm tha Asian stereotype held by much of western "civilization" and re-inforced by Hollywood Fantasies such as this..... The basic message of this picture is: "we Americans...coming from the worlds only true democracy have a divine right to go to all other nations...and put right their wrongs.....screw-up their environment....and teach them about freedom....." (see for example The Beach......at least Leo did it with a bit more style)....of course Vietnam is another story.... And.....the educated Asian may well ask why the Yankie Gungh-Ho attitude about Asia should come from a nation whose main contribution to humanity has been helping to spread Cancer... Aids.. Gun carrying kiddies and Jerry Springer......et al.. At the end of this picture the cynical viewer may well be cheering for the Burmese Military..... 3 out of 10.


This hokey movie left me groaning after just about any exchange of dialogue or plot complication. Patricia Arquette, though pleasing to look at, gives a below par performance from her usual mediocrity. My friends and I have coined the phrase "Beyond Rangoon" to mean anything really bad. A lowpoint for Boorman.


I am very surprised to see the good ratings for this movie.

I watched the film 9 years ago and I still remember how angry I felt to sit in the movie theatre and to look at this mess. I am a big fan of John Boorman's work. I really like his movies. So I went to "Beyond Rangoon" with big expectations. But I felt like watching a dumb, cheap Chuck Norris jungle movie with all action scenes cut out. Even the soundtrack was very annoying.

I can't believe that John Boorman was the director because this movie was so badly done. I think the Burmese people deserve better films to illustrate their struggle.


This film was sheer boredom from beginning to end. Ok, so i salute Boorman for raising the worldwide recognition of events in Burma, but that is all he achieves. About 10 minutes into the film i thought "oh no, here we go again", and i could have told you exactly what was going to occur in the next 80 minutes or so. Patricia Arquette was out of her depth in such a role, and her acting was wooden and unconvincing. Mind you, being saddled with such an awfully conventional script, maybe boredom set in, and was such reflected on the screen. A lot of the film was just plain laughable. At one stage, Arquette's elderly companion is shot, and he is prostrate on the ground. In the next scene, he is sprinting through the forest, obviously attempting to break the world 100 meters record! - or maybe he's just trying to run away from Boorman!!. If you find it hard to sleep one night then play Beyond Rangoon on your VCR and you'll be snoring in no time. I very rarely critisize a film as heavily as this, but in this case it is completely justified.


I'll say it again... one of the worst films ever made and it was made by the director that made one of my most, favorite films - "Excalibur". I was floored to see it got a grade of over six. This movie sucks. It looked terrible. It looked like it was shot in 18 days and Boorman must've been sleeping when he directed this. Arquette didn't do anything. Just plain terrible, rotten, unbearable and probably the only blemish in Boorman's celebrated career.

1/10!!!!!


This series takes a classic story and makes rubbish of it. Robin is somehow mystified by an elk-man in the forest and is embroiled in all sorts of druidism and outright satanic episodes. The story is more about him avoiding the evil sheriff than helping the poor. This is barely watchable. And to top all the ridiculousness they kill Robin at the end of series 2 and replace him with another actor. Some people may like this show as a fantasy show but it is NOT a Robin Hood show. If you want Robin fighting in king Richards name against Prince John and the sheriff and if you want Robin feeding the poor and oppressed, watch the classic series or the newest from the BBC.


Well, how to start? I saw The Italian Job for the first time some years ago and visiting a rental shop I couldn't quite remember why I had a bad feeling about it. Now I do.

After voting for the ratings for this film I saw the statistics. Apparently this film appeals most to under 18 girls. No wonder. They didn't pay enough to Charlize to flash and I guess some girls magazine has rated Mark Wahlbergs abs "AWESOME".

Other than that this film is completely predictable, the actors are mainly forever B-stars and even the good ones are being misused horribly, the film is filled with obvious product placement and imagine this: it even manages to repeat itself without doing a sequel! The first 15 minutes are the best part of the film and it's all downhill from there and once they figured this out they decided to use the finest hour again in the end repeating-to-detail their gold heist. All in all, lots of noise about nothing.

I think Charlize Theron is good and Ed Norton could be more as he's been before. Apart from Donald Sutherland's "look, I'm here too" appearing in the beginning I'd say this movie ought to have a "pass if you're above 18" all over it.


A ridiculous, badly acted Mini Cooper infomercial. Includes cameos from Pepsi, Dell, etc.

Absolutely nothing worth rescuing here. Particularly bad are Donald Sutherland, the music score, scene transitions, etc. An embarrassing production.

Hey, THEY should pay YOU for watching this one.


This is a woeful Hollywood remake of a classic British film. Everything that made the original "Italian Job" entertaining has been bled out of this festering sore of a movie "scripted" by Donna and Wayne Powers and listlessly "directed" by F Gary Gray. I am amazed that Troy Kennedy Martin (the screenwriter of the original film) allowed his name to be used in the credits for this pig's ear. Martin has worked on some of the finest film and TV projects of the last 40-odd years. Even being vaguely associated with this stinker is NOT A GOOD THING.

The humour is forced, the drama is laboured, all the characters are cookie-cutter likable crims (with the exception of Charlize Theron's implausible, beautiful safe cracker/rally driver)and the plot only matches the original on the following points:

(1) Three Minis (the modern BMW-made versions, but Minis nonetheless)

(2) Use of the names Croker and Bridger for 2 of the main characters

(3) Disrupting a city's traffic control system to provide a safe route through it.

(4) Er, that's it.

Otherwise, what you get is a bland and implausible American by-the-numbers heist movie in which a gang of jolly pirate chums eventually get the better of their evil associate. Believe me, it feels like an awful long time before they do. The cast do their best with what they're given but it seems that they all accepted it as a turd-polishing exercise after reading the script. None of the original film's quirky nature and distinctly British flavour has survived being fed into the Hollywood hamburger machine.

Do yourself a favour and watch the original 1969 movie instead of this sucking chest wound. It's a wonder that Noel Coward hasn't done an Aunt Nelly, jumped out of his grave and kicked the teeth of everyone involved in this tepid remake halfway down their throats.

Italian Job? More like Italian Jobbie.


I must admit, I was against this movie from the outset but I tried my hardest to be impartial, I really did, but the very idea of remaking a sophisticated, witty, entertaining, quirky British classic full of character has to be dubious from the outset.

People in my house were watching this so I swallowed my pride and told myself to be professional about films (I have studied them at Uni after all).

As expected for an American film of this sort, the movie began with a chase which wasn't bad. Indeed, many of the action sequences are credible and this alone lifts the mark.

Yet the characterisation was abysmal, the set-pieces could very easily have been spliced from any American schlock blockbuster you might have had the misfortune to watch and it lacked all character.

Seeming to take a skewed angle on the original film with a failed initial robbery, the US version does the predictable thing and introduces an emotional factor with the death of Donald Sutherland's character. This allows our US cousins plenty of opportunity for sycophantic, dewy-eyed vengeance-seeking against the 'evil-doers' which it milks to predictable excesses. This is never more so evident as in the scenes featuring Charlize Theron (oh pretty! oh so pretty! Look at her pretty, wounded Bambi eyes, everyone!) which were thoroughly nauseating. Her entrance scene, particularly, was like something out of Resident Evil or Tomb Raider which were both a) more entertaining and b) had better beginnings because they couldn't mess up a game like they could with British cinema which was already chock-full of spark, people you genuinely feel something for and moments of inspiration. But I digress, the whole inclusion of a pretty girl for the sake of it just seems like the most ham-fisted manoeuvre I've seen in some time and exposes cynical Hollywood blockbuster-lust for what it is.

If you like any of these actors, by the way, and you agree with any of the above comments, DO NOT GO TO SEE THIS FILM! If I had the opportunity of watching 'Fight Club' or 'American History X' after seeing Ed Norton in this, I would have declined. Likewise Jason Statham with 'Lock Stock' (and I suppose 'The Transporter' is okay if you like that sort of thing).

Sadly, all the set-pieces are designed in the most transparent possible way to get you thinking, 'Wow! He's smart!', 'Coo! He's cool!', 'Hey! What a tough guy!'. Then there's the 'funny PC guy' who has 'comic relief' splattered across his forehead but whose humour content can be anticipated two minutes in advance. To be honest, if you've seen one or two films like it, you might easily confuse the two as clones from the Jerry Bruckheimer stable. Not that Jerry is irredeemably awful, by the way, but he just uses the clichés to excess as everyone knows (or should).

This is where I have to come clean. I didn't manage to make it to the end, so I couldn't even say whether the brilliant ending in the Michael Caine version made it but, I'm sorry, it's just one of those extremely rare films that, if I'd seen it at a cinema, I would have walked out and staged a small protest outside. It's not just that it is another identical by-the-numbers Ocean's 14 or something (Ocean's Eleven was fine but don't bother with the rest!) with all the glitz, glamour, fake sass and pantomime heroics of such a film but I couldn't recognise anything from the original at all.

So, if you are expecting 'THE Italian JOB' and not 'OCEAN'S 14' albeit badly written with a less established cast and characters, some disingenuous elements and cardboard cut-out script-writing then DO NOT WATCH! I don't mind people liking a bit of mindless fun but this is a criminal hatchet-job that does not deserve in any way to parade itself under the title of a classic. Seriously, show some pride! I felt thoroughly justified in my outraged and sickened reaction when I first heard that the film would be made. Avoid at all costs!

P.S. Some of the action sequences aren't bad at all so add an extra '1' to the mark if you like this sort of thing.


I was really disappointed by this movie. Great actors in it, and potentially a great plot, but it just seemed to limp along.

Charlize Theron was masterful in her role and beautiful, but it seemed like 90% of her on-screen work was in car chases done with Austin Minis. Product placement gone wrong, so very wrong.

The direction seemed off, too. Edward Norton is the bad guy, and it was so obvious right from the start. Every time the camera would pass over him, it would linger too long and Norton would grimace or something. C'mon, Hollywood, give us a little credit! It's okay to surprise us with a plot twist without having to telegraph it.

Sorry, but this movie was just below average. I have always been one to appreciate the work and talent that goes into a movie, but this one just didn't have it.


"The Italian Job" is a caper movie done by the numbers. Riding on the back of every caper cliche, it rises to no particular heights and will be a movie footnote by about the end of the month.

The biggest problem is that "The Italian Job" possesses no imagination at all. I've seen it all before and done better then. The acting is fine the cinematography is completely acceptable, but this film breaks absolutely no new ground.

Let's tick off the cliches:

 - "old-school" criminal father figure and his protege

 - another gang member jealous of protege

 - a double-cross

 - only bad guys use guns while good-guy criminals don't have to

 - good criminals always outwit the bad guys

And that's about the first fifteen minutes. Everything is so predictable. Even the heist and car chase scenes, supposedly the highlight of the movie, seem pretty ordinary. This is especially true since they appeared in the trailers for the film so I already knew what to look for.

For me, a caper film works only if it has an element of realism - that maybe, just maybe, it could be pulled off without relying on a deux ex machina or "just because" moments. Parts of "The Italian Job" just throws that out the window, with computers doing things that computers can't do, the good guys not hitting anyone with their driving (especially going down the stairs) and not one single police car responding to street explosions, recklessly driven minis or even a low flying helicopter. Must be a heck of a city for these things not to rate a response.

The acting is passable, with the crew (Seth Green, Jason Stratham and Mos Def) being at least fun to watch. Mark Wahlberg is just too smarmy as the "nice guy" hero while Charlize Theron is about the only actor called on to display some kind of range. Donald Sutherland is a class act as always and shows up Wahlberg's deficiencies every moment they are together.

Overall this is a pretty uninteresting film. Given the IMDb ratings, it's the girls that really love this film, which I can understand to some extent, but there are such better caper films out there - even the vapidness of the recent "Ocean's Eleven" outshines the non-event that is "The Italian Job".

***SPOILER***

At the conclusion, take a moment to think about what is going to happen to Norton's character. Are we meant to be cheering the good guys for causing his demise, especially since it would appear to be long and painful? He didn't deserve that, simpering creep that he was.

***END SPOILER***


The characters was as unoriginal it hurts. The little skinny dorky computer geek, the funny African-American with stupid clisché punchlines, cool white guy with a compassion for cars and the handsome leader who ends up with the pretty girl. The actors is at best mediocre. Ecsept from Norton who does a pretty good job as the bad guy.

The rest of the movie is also stupid and a total waste of time. Its all in all about a group of spoiled boys using the world as their playground where every safe in a big house is what keeps them with food on the table. I mean, why work for a living when you can rob people?

AND,.. Who the f**** messes with the traffic lights in a major European city?!? And in the middle of the FRIGGIN day!? Think of all the damages and not to say deaths among innocent civilians. What about all the ambulances and firetrucks?

I created NO compassion for the main characters, and weather Mr Wahlberg gets his bloody gold or not, i could not give less of a fart.


This film did well at the box office, and the producers of this mess thought the stars had such good chemistry in this that they cast them in the much darker screwball farce, The Gazebo. Frankly, I am shocked to see all the positive comments on this ludicrously plotted unfunny comedy. Both lead characters have the maturity of seven-year-olds and are much less interesting to spend time with. A veteran supporting cast including Fred Clark, Harry Morgan, and Eva Gabor lend excellent support. And, the beautiful cinematography certainly makes the rich countryside of Spain seem lush. And, there are four or five truly funny scenes to go with two wise scenes and a whole bunch of recycled and unfunny clutter.

I cannot recommend It Started With A Kiss.