I saw this movie a time ago, because some of my friends wanted to rent it, and I got voted down.. I tried as best I could to get the story, because some moviemag had said that this would be a movie that would be for Rob Lowe, that Pulp Fiction had been for John Travolta... Well.. we can all see that he not only failed, but he fell aaall the way down. This is actually the worst film I've ever seen, and I've seen a great deal of bad movies.. it's just not even worth seeing for free on tv.


Do not watch this movie, or.. If you are really mad at anyone, you can give this as a birthdaypresent. This is the worst movies I have ever seen. Do NOT watch this. If you do, remember: That would be a self-destructive action. It is a shame that this is not voted lower.


It's been said that some directors make small budget pictures look like blockbusters. Albert Pyun makes small budget pictures look like high school A/V project films. This film was pretty much lacking in all departments. Practically every scene drags on excessively, the "experimental" lighting and camera work is terrible, Rob Lowe apparently equated being scruffy with acting, and the poor drab Euro-pop numbers stop the movie to a dead halt. On the plus side, Burt Reynolds does a pretty good job with what he's given (which isn't much), Mario Van Peebles is surprisingly decent and Ice-T puts in another of a long recent string of B-movie gangsters. Not Pyun's worst work (Urban Menace), but certainly not his best (Mean Guns).


What is the story what is it on the screen. At first I must say, do not touch this movie, it is for your own best (it sucks). And really what is the story, in the beginning it seems okay but after ten minutes it all gets worse. And that is not all, you can hardly see what it is on the screen it is too dark all the time.

Do not touch.


This movie was a monument to inept filmmaking on a colossal scale. I'm a huge Burt Reynolds fan, but even he was horrible in this film. The only redeeming quality of this film was the chick that smoked all the time. She was kind of attractive to look at. Otherwise, what a waste of time and energy...


Do yourself a favor and stay away from this film. Minus 50 billion out of 10. If you want hard boiled action don`t rent it! If you want a good independent film look elsewhere!<br /><br />I never thought i`d see Burt Reynolds in such a crappy movie. It has the thinnest plot-line ever. Van Damm flicks should win an Academy compared to this one.

Rob Lowe once again prove why he is not the hottest actor in the world. Even Hasselhoff would have made a better drug addict than him. I do not want to bore you with more facts about this crappy movie, except to say that you are better off renting anything by Hulk Hogan or Dolph Lundgreen. This should prove my point, if you get my drift.


I am not afraid of bad movies. I like bad movies. I enjoy mocking them in the company of my friends. We're all quite good at it, in fact. That being said, let me tell you how much I hated this movie.

To begin with, it was incomprehensible. Rob Lowe attacks some people, they capture him but he escapes in this big ol' shoot out. There's this singer whom we think died, only she didn't, unless maybe there are several of them who all act and look the same. Cue Burt Reynolds to come in and question the singer. He looks like he's just wandered into this movie off of the Walker, Texas Ranger set and is darn confused. Then Rob Lowe dies, only he doesn't... And the worst thing is, there's not enough dialogue or action that doesn't involve killing people or attempting to to even make fun of this movie!! And don't even get me started on the random chihuahua. Then there was the fact that it was supposed to be about the old power structure in Eastern-Europe falling apart. We didn't know where we were, all the accents were apparently "Eastern-European" and what were Burt Reynolds and Rob Lowe doing there in the first place?

I desperately wanted to tell the people at Blockbuster what I thought of this movie, and to get my money back, but since I'd gotten it as a special (only $.99) I decided against it. What I want to know, however, is HOW THE DIRECTOR GOT THE GREENLIGHT to make this darn movie, and what the 'stars' were thinking when they signed on???


Don't waste your time and money on it. It's not quite as bad as "Adrenalin", by the same director but that's not saying much.


directed by albert pyun in his inimitably awful but strangely hypnotic style, "crazy six" is yet another jewel in the crown for this decade's upscale hugo haas (jess franco?). "Stylish" overdirection, incoherent plotting, time-outs in the middle of action sequences for eurodisco torch -song performances, all these seem to be signifying traits for our man Pyun. Most interesting is how he always gets top-notch b-movie casts, compared to Wynorski or some of the other video directors. Ice-T, Rob Lowe, Mario Van Peebles, & the very strange Burt Reynolds ain't a bad cast, though they often look a bit confused. Check out "Postmortem", "Mean Guns", & "Omega Doom" for more top-notch Pyun mayhem!


I was suckered in by the big names. Rob Lowe, Mario Van Peebles, Burt Reynolds, and the fact that it was an independent film. Unbelievably slow beginning: 35 minutes, two dreary songs and a botched rip off. I didn't care about the characters, and the plot never tempted me to even pretend it could be realistic. I can't believe this is what makes it to the screen. I loved watching this film because it felt so good when it was over.


This film should have been much better than it was. Christopher Eccleston is an excellent actor but even he couldn't rescue this tale of a young woman searching for the truth over her sister's death. Spoiler warning : In effect the truth is that the older sister ( played by Diaz) is just a spoilt, selfish and shallow girl who took too many drugs. Not much of a twist and not that interesting either. The film is also overladen with far too many flashbacks and voice overs and lacks dramatic pacing. All in all this is definitely worth missing - not to be recommended.


What a shame. What a terrible shame. The table was set, the candles were lit, the guests had arrived... and then...

... well nothing really. Just pretentious drivel. It could have been great, OK maybe not great, but it could have been very good. All the elements were there but at the end of the day the bottle was empty: NO LIGHTNING! How that happened is a mystery with everything at the director's disposal...

... the story was quite brave although it certainly needed considerable work with possibly several finishing rewrites to fix the story and tighten up the characters a lot (the only thing that was consistently and constantly and unnecessarily tight was the cinematography, but i'll get to that). But the direction was lousy, the acting was just that: _a-C-T-i-n-G_ with a heavy side of cheese and lots of ham, and then the cinematography...

...well that was something to behold! But only if you are in film school's "Cinematography 101 how to never ever use a professional movie camera under any circumstances". Obviously the student had fallen asleep through part of the lecture's introduction and only heard "... use a professional movie camera..." then blissfully back to la la land as the sentence finished off.

What can i say; amateurish and pretentious to the last! I can only see this film meant to appeal as a Chick Flick because it's supposed to be sad, but then falls flat and just ends up being 'sad' (as an excuse for a movie)... so that even those 'Chicks' wouldn't be fooled by this schlockenspiel!

PS. I felt bad for Miss Diaz. She's a lot better at her craft than what this film allowed her to be, even though she was totally TOTALLY miscast. Actually i feel sorry for everyone in this movie except the director and (you guessed it) the cinematographer! I say '1st against the wall for them when the revolution comes!' OK, not really, after all "it was only a movie" but perhaps a good "tar and feather and running out of town" might be more satisfying or at the very least a lot more entertaining!!!

TTFN :-(


what a waste of time! i expected better from cameron diaz! i guess it wasn't really her fault for being in a terrible film. the film does not capture the beauty of europe.....and wasn't successful in leading the audience into suspense or wonder. weak attempt at storytelling and narrating -- dialogue is dull and wasn't able to convey what i sometimes think simplicity is beauty. no love, energy, electricity on screen. too bad!!!!!!!!1


I wanted to love this film so badly...I really did. But it was a horrible disappointment.

I read Jennifer Egan's novel in 1996 and was enthralled by the story. In fact it remains one of my favorite books of all time. Mind you, the book had much more depth than this movie, in plot and emotional resonance. It MADE you care about the characters. It painted a complete picture of Phoebe, unlike the utterly poor characterization of the young girl in the film.

Though beautiful and showing *some* promise in her burgeoning career, Jordana Brewster was as flat and hollow in this performance as was the script. And Christopher Eccleston (Wolf) was just an awful choice for the role of Wolf, both physically and logistically. What an awkward looking couple. Wolf should have been more of a dark brooding character, and more physically alluring, like he was in the book. What's more, the chemistry between the two actors was painfully forced.

Cameron Diaz, however, deserves utmost praise for her performance. She took an impossibly mediocre script and gave her character life, a real spirit. She is simply gorgeous and her careful mannerisms make her very believable as a hippie. It's too bad her talent was squandered on this forgettable film.

In the book-to-movie category, this is a dreadful translation, almost as bad as Message in a Bottle with Kevin Costner. But don't get me started on that one...

I am not usually so harsh in my critiques but I was so disappointed here, because I really cared about the story and wanted to see it told right. It did not deliver...


This movie attempts many things but never really accomplishes anything, the plot time travels, meanders and weaves along without really satisfying. It left a hollow , "is that all" feeling at the end. Unless its free to air and there is nothing else on, forget about it.


The films' producers are hoping that Cameron Diaz' name will help sell this picture. Unfortunately, nothing can save what has already been captured on the screen. Despite some beautifully shot European locations and some solid production design elements, the film fails mostly due to its awkward, unbelievable romance between Brewster and Eccleston. An unplesasant filmgoing experience.


One of the worst movies I've ever seen. Yes, I know I'm not the target audience. Target audience is females, either college age or middle aged or any aged I guess. I'm none of these so the makers don't mind if I don't like it. But that won't excuse the fact that the dialogue and the plot are horrible. The main character, Phoebe, goes on a journey to Europe to find out what happened to her sister, Faith, who committed suicide. Phoebe is an inane character that i hope no one identifies with. Faith is also a character with very little believability. Wolf is the only person who seems to be somewhat reasonable. As I said the dialogue is boring and uninteresting. The plot does completely stupid things at times. The absolute worst is that Phoebe and Faith's father is an artist but his paintings are completely dreadful. There is nothing new, interesting or refreshing in this movie. If your a guy, you will pray for the ending. If your a chick you might be able to sit through it but you will be unimpressed.


I saw this film right in the middle while going through a breakup. It was about 3 in the morning and I was battling insomnia with a quick snack. It wasn't too bad at the time, but every time I have tried to watch it since, I can't get into it like I did that night.

At the time I thought it was cute and I loved the variety of characters, though they totally could have done better than Goran V, in my opinion. But the one thing that kept me watching was Heather's character and her sad "commitment" to her husband who didn't want her anymore, which made me feel sorry for her and root for her at the same time. (Considering I was in a similar situation at the time, perhaps that's why I liked her so much.) Not a bad film, but you pretty much have to be somewhere near the character romantically in order to appreciate it, and let's hope you never are.


A ditzy girl (yes, ditzy is about as complex as her character gets) won't take no for an answer and does quirky things to get her husband back. It's too far-fetched to be believable with such flimsy characters going through the motions. But not far-fetched enough to be fascinating in the way that say, Being John Malkovich, was. So it ends up boring.

sv


I saw this film because Calexico did the score. A real disappointment. Annoying, trendy scenes, with urban hipsters and their cliche hip lifestyles. Cheesy stereotypical Mexican border culture (mystic grandfather with the rattlesnake and potions, granddaughter in her mariachi-style restaurant getup). A few laughs, but hipper-than-thou, and sorely lacking in vision and basic filmmaking talent.


"Committed", as in Heather Graham being COMMITTED to saving her husband/marriage, and then being COMMITTED to a psychiatric ward in failure to do so: what a clever, clever use of words.

One of those meaningless wanna-be philosophical films in which narration is a series of oh-so wise observations that verge on poetry (90s chique club-poetry, better known as "chit-chique poetry"). Oh, it's so je-ne-sais-quoi... Written/directed (or "auteured") by a woman (Lisa Krueger, whoever the hell you are), this is a pointless, lethargically directed road-movie full of New Age spiritualistic nonsense and characters that are meant to be interesting but are merely seen-before or just plain dull. The Latinos in this movie, as part of the poor urban minority, are typically glorified in all their mysticism-obsessed primitivism as a "spiritually superior" people, which is the "highlight" of this film's political correctness.

The whole affair is lifeless, and ceases to be so only when occasional good cast members appear (Kay Place, Baker, Wilson). On the other hand we have Casey Affleck, who is one of the very best examples of why nepotism is on par with first-degree murder as a crime. I have rarely seen a more apathetic "actor"; a skinny, ugly moron who goes through his lines in a sleepy manner, almost as if he were uttering them in a half-awake quasi-dream, plus that weak voice, one of the weakest male voices I've heard in my life. (He must have gone to the Tobey Maguire Lethargy School Of Acting.) To cast this idiot in ANYTHING speaks volumes about ANY movie, i.e. about ANY director or producer. Hence, Lisa Krueger is a talentless waste of space. We've also got that moron who had the lead role in the MST3K-spoofed "Werewolf"; I think his name is Goran Vishnjic, but I'm not sure. Check out his ridiculous accent and the dumb speech.


From what I remember seeing of this film, it was not good. I always say that if a film is good and can keep you attention throughout the hardest of moments (example: a Tylenol Cold & Sinus war) than it is a film that has done its job. The fact that I was asleep for most of this film only proves the fact that it could not keep my attention, and ergo, it did not complete its job. Why did I fall victim to the Tylenol Cold & Sinus, when I had a film in my arsenal?

To begin, Committed did not make any sense. The acting was poor and the overall story left more doors opened that just couldn't be closed. I am thinking of the moment when I swear I saw Affleck and Graham (brother and sister in this film) kissing. That didn't make any sense. Then there was a scene with Affleck and his roommates indicating that he was sleeping with one of them, almost breaking up a perfect lesbian couple. I suppose this was to show that most are not as committed to a relationship as Graham is, but for me it just was nothing more than filler. I have this suspicious feeling that the director of this film was sleeping with Affleck. His acting in this film was atrocious. I mean, I have never seen him do any "good" acting, but this was by far the worst. Oh, I just had another moment during the battle come through my mind and I confirmed it with IMDb.com ... what was John Stewart doing in this film? That was yet again another moment when my eyes were opened just for a moment in one of those battles that seemed to last forever.

And frankly, it's Heather Graham - we could care less about her after a while. She's just not interesting - she's just bland, boring and basically stops acting after a while. While they desperately start throwing wacky characters into the mix to revive the movie, it just doesn't work and instead of just calling it a day - they start throwing more characters into the mix so now it's just weird, tedious, boring and really, really long. Luke Wilson's slow drawl acting style slows an already crawling movie to dead halt - why exactly were these two married? Committed is a truly terrible film--the kind of "hip comedy" that leaves you staggering out depressed and bored.

Grade: * out of *****


Committed stars (Heather Graham) along with (Casey Affleck) and (Luke Wilson). Its the story of Joline who is determined to find her ex-husband who is in the process of a mid-life crisis.

Committed was not at all what I expected it was lacking in comedy which was ultimately the genre. It was beyond stupid and un-realistic, Casey Affleck delivered a reasonable performance, Graham's recent roles have been lack-luster and this is not an improvement.

Graham's most recent role was Blessed which I also found misleading and didn't appeal to me at all.

Pros Affleck

Cons Predictable, Unrealistic, Poor Acting and not a comedy movie!


Horrible waste of talent. Not even worth watching when there is absolutely nothing else to do. My hope against hope is that the actors at least got paid well. Anyway, if you're a fan of Heather's or Luke's, you'll be really disappointed by this big budget student film.


More of a character study then a movie, COMMITTED is yet just another relationship romp with the trimmings specifically made for a young, target audience. The direction seems very basic, with obvious dramatic irony and a classic case of the lost loser versus the clueless committed. COMMITTED is watchable at times and there is a small feeling of originality from Lisa Krueger.

COMMITTED is completely aimless for the first twenty minutes. We get to know Joline but the movie picks up when her husband disappears. Joline sets off to find him.

Some parts are strange. Other times the movie drags. The second half is more humorous as we see Joline's spiritual antics take a turn for the more intense. The annoying guitar music is awful, but perhaps a necessary evil as COMMITTED offers very little anyway. An average movie hampered by some completely pointless moments, COMMITTED 's only asset is Heather Graham and Patricia Velazquez.


Usually, I start my reviews with an explanation of how and why I watched the film I'm reviewing. With this, I simply cannot explain. I needed to be awake early for work the next day so the last thing I wanted to do was watch a film that I didn't know anything about. But something kept me glued to my comfy futon as I watched this Heather Graham vehicle. Oh, that's right. Boredom.

Graham plays Joline, a bohemian nut-case who seems more obsessed with her marriage vows than the guy she married (played by Luke Wilson). When her hubby decides to set off in search of better things (work, women and scripts, presumably), Joline begins a fanatical quest to find her husband and free him from his "spiritual wheelchair". It sounds like I'm making this up but sadly, I'm not. In reality, this is little more than an acting exercise for Graham as she gamely gives this Phoebe-from-Friends role a work-out. Oh and Goran "ER" Visnjic is in there as well, for some reason.

The TV schedules had this down as a comedy but I failed to find a single laugh anywhere. It struck me that this was a personal journey for Lisa Krueger (the director and writer), in the same mould as "Girl, Interrupted" but even that had more laughs than this. Graham's character is simply too self-centred for the audience to care about and I felt sorry for the hen-pecked husband as he bravely fought for his freedom from his clearly mental wife. Very little of this film made sense as characters simply appeared in the story as though they were standing around, waiting for Graham to turn up like the extras in "The Truman Show". In fact, the only positive note I can produce from my scribblings was "Heather Graham - nice baps". And that wasn't because I was too tired to enjoy the film.

In truth, it's very difficult to think of anybody to recommend this film to. Graham purists (a VERY small number of overall movie-goers, I think you'll agree) will have to be committed to watch this dross and possibly hippy students who collect American Indian dream-catchers will take something from this. I was amazed that the average rating (at time of writing) was 5.0 - that would make this film as good as "Die Another Day" and "Gothika" in my book and that simply ain't right. "Committed" is a quirky oddball mess of a movie that neither entertains or enlightens. It's complicated, pointless and simply too boring for my tastes and probably yours too. Don't even think about watching this.


What an uninteresting hodge-podge. It could have been something more but no imagination seems to have gone into the script or the direction. A man is framed for murder by his wife and her lover. The conspirators do a pretty thorough job of making him look guilty. But the man (Richard Thomas), whose psychiatric records reveal him as "stable" and "unimaginative", manages to escape from jail, beat it to the conspirator's beach house, and secretly record a conversation between them in which they reveal their guilt. Then he accidentally drops the tape recorder with all the evidence on it into the sea water but manages to retrieve it. He shows a heck of a lot of creativity and improvisational skill for an unimaginative guy, if you ask me.

The tape is now damaged goods but it's enough to break down the wife's lover and he sobs out his confession. Bad people are punished. Good people are saved.

The location shooting is impressive. The beach house is nothing more than a wooden exterior thrown up on the grounds of Fort Fisher Battlefield on the Cape Fear peninsula. The house was torn down immediately after the production wrapped.

It's a pretty place. Unfortunately it's a little hard to see because someone seems to have shot every scene through a pair of pantyhose stretched over the camera lens. It's all very fuzzy. And for all the natural splendor of the location the viewer never gets a real sense of place, of what the sand feels like, of the texture of the gray bark on the stunted evergreens.

The acting is okay but the performers have nothing much to work with. The best performance, as is often the case, is given by Dick Olsen as a sleazy but not unsympathetic defense lawyer. Virginia Madsen radiates infidelity with every beat of her eyelashes. Ted McGinley is within his range as an immoral weakling.

The musical score neatly blends the ominous with the mysterious and is effective. If you want to hear the original, from which this was ripped off, rent Hitchcock's "Vertigo" and listen to Bernard Hermann's suspenseful theme.

I can't think of any particular reason to catch this one except utter boredom.


Years ago, I caught a fairly well made TV movie entitled "Linda". It was made in 1973, and starred Stella Stevens in the femme fatale title roll. Imagine my surprise when, over ten years later, I once again saw the same story unfold on late night TV. However, it was this 1993 version, starring Virginia Madsen. Don't get me wrong, I can handle remakes, even obscure ones. But this badly written and poorly filmed retread made me feel sorry for both Madsen and co-star Richard Thomas. Unlike the original, the dialogue here is cliched, making me wonder, "Why did they bother to re-write it?" Second, the camera work is very heavy-handed, and the the film stock is poor. At times I felt reminded of the student film competition at the beginning of Christopher Guest's "The Big Picture". Finally, the cast looks either bored (Madsen) or suffering (Thomas). In fact, the only one who seems like he's really enjoying the work is Ted McGinley. Of course, with his perfectly coifed hair and capped teeth, he's really stretching himself from his previous work on "The Love Boat". Bottom line, to borrow a critique from Opus the Penguin in Bloom County:

"This movie does for film what Jonestown did for Kool-Aid."

Thomkat


This TVM seems to have polarised opinions amongst the commentators on this page so perhaps I can settle everything by saying this is a very stupid not very well made television movie . How bad is it ? It's a teleplay that can't even decide what its name is because while everyone in America calls it LINDA it's known in Britain as LUST FOR MURDER and it's usually a bad sign when a movie has to change its name . And can I also point out that it's not a tongue in cheek spoof as somebody else claimed

I will be honest and say the plot is rather sound . Linda and Paul Cowley meet another couple called the Jeffries who they get on very well with . They get on so well that they go on holiday together ( Make up your own mind if there's some wife swapping going on ) and Paul sees his wife kill the Jeffries . After that the plot takes a shock twist

Writing the above paragraph I have suddenly realised the large amount of potential the story had and I won't say anything to put you off the premise . It's just that when the story continues after the events I've described things become more and more unlikely and bizarre . Not only that but the production values are fairly unimpressive with the actor playing Paul Cowley doing a very wooden voice over that irritates while most of the scenes - Exterior and interior - look like they've been filmed on a foggy day


Some films are so badly made they are watchable purely for the cringe factor. Disciples made me cringe so much it was uncomfortable. I watched it all disbelieving what I was watching, wasn't anyone aware how bad this was whilst they were filming? Mix the most hammed performances from the most wooden actors, an abysmal script were every comment from all of the 'actors' sounded like it came from the same character and the most hurried editing that tried (and failed bigtime) to give the film a forced pace. All these combined into a film that will rob you of a few hours of your life and give nothing in return. Avoid at EVERY cost.


Terrible. There's no way to get around it. A script at the level of one from some Mexican soap opera, a choice and use of the places of shooting that make the movie labyrinthine and at the same time, repetitive and monotonous, with disastrous performances of almost the entire cast. The references to Tarantino's work, so poorly made, are more an insult than anything else. I suspect that was not for the shameless and plot-unrelated exploitation of Matadinho's generous curves , nobody would take the effort to go watch this film to any theater.

These are the kind of films that make me have no desire to watch Portuguese cinema.


My daughter liked it but I was aghast, that a character in this movie smokes. As if it isn't awful enough to see "product placement" actors like Bruce Willis who smoke in their movies - at least children movies should be more considerate! I wonder: was that intentional? Did big tobacco "sponsor" the film? What does it take to ban smoking from films? At least films intended for children and adolescents. My daughter liked it but I was aghast, that a character in this movie smokes. As if it isn't awful enough to see "product placement" actors like Bruce Willis who smoke in their movies - at least children movies should be more considerate! I wonder: was that intentional? Did big tobacco "sponsor" the film? What does it take to ban smoking from films? At least films intended for children and adolescents.


I thought this movie was too absurd for me to finish watching it. The premise was too silly and predictable. I didn't make it far into the movie.

Let me see. She is obviously older than the cabbie (unless she is a lot younger than she looks). He is black and she is white. She makes more money than him (he is only a cabbie). That's 3 of society's most statistically failed unions all rolled up in one and we are supposed to pretend they have a chance in hell. She would be better off marrying the guy she doesn't love.

I only watched it partially because I love MJW as an actor. His acting was superb. Hers, meh! It was OK but the premise is too silly. Didn't see the end. Couldn't make it there so I don't know if it ended differently from the way I predicted the ending would be. I can't imagine any black woman liking this movie. There is something sickening about watching a black man catering to a white woman like that. And an old one at that. PLEASE! Not in the real world!


This film was basically set up for failure by the studio. One, Anne Rice (author of the book) offered to write the screen play but was refused by the studio. Two, they tried to stuff 2 in depth novels in to a 2hour movie.

I maintain the only way for these two books -Vampire Lestat and Queen of the Damned- to work in a live action form would be through a mini-series. First off the the Vampire Lestat alone takes place from the 1700's to the 1980's and has a plethora of character vital to the plot understanding of the main character, Lestat. The entire book Vampire Lestat sets up the events of the second part Queen of the Damned. Without that full understanding the premise of a movie is destroyed.

Lestat was not cruel and vicious to all, he was not wanting to go along with Akasha's plans, Marius did not make Lestat, Lestat did not love Jesse or make her, Lestat could not go remain unscathed by the light, Marius was not after David nor the other way around, every character was completely represented wrong, BASICALLY same names different story.

If they wanted to make a vampire movie, fine. Even if you wanted to be inspired by these novels, fine. But don't piggie back into the theaters off the success of Rice's great novels and characters just to destroy what her loyal readers have come to love.

If you haven't read the books you won't understand the film really, if you have read the books you will be insulted. That being said, I am such a huge fan I had to see the movie knowing full well this was going to be the case and still went for it. Catch 22, must see it, will hate it.


I should have known when I heard Anne Rice left the project that the movie would disappoint me. I couldn't have predicted that years after it's release just thinking about the movie still makes me angry. The novels are amazing, and while I understand much gets lost in the translation to screen, this movie was a great big middle finger to her original work. I hope one day someone tries again, the right way, starting with The Vampire Lestat. They change the roles and looks of major and minor characters alike for no good reason. They destroy Lestat's history. The acting of the Queen is exaggerated to the point of comedy, but I just can't bring myself to laugh. The charm and allure of the novels just isn't there. The movie is a bad excuse to cram as many musicians and "dark" imagery as possible into one movie, hoping the teeny Goths of America would lap it up. Part of the appeal of the first movie, of Louis' story, is that he is caught between his humanity and his curse. Lestat is supposed to take over and display the magic and excitement of the vampire world. Thank goodness I read the books first, or I'd have never touched them after this movie.


Why did they unleash this movie upon us? It seems as though they set out to make this movie a total slap in theface to Anne Rice and every self respecting Vampire Chronicles fan. It ignores the ground work laid down by Interview with the Vampire,mutilates the plot of the novel and has Stuart Townsend stumbling around drunk.

Stuart is NOT our Lestat! Our brat prince, our adventurous rebel with the damndest sense of humor. Stuart IS a second rate, boring rip off of Dracula in black leather. He DID NOT read the books or know the character...is he illiterate? Tom Cruise is dyslexic and still he made a point to read the books and know and love Lestat.

Don't kid yourselves, it is not a "Stand Alone" vampire flick it's trash plain and simple.


I'm usually not inclined to write reviews about films I don't think deserve a mention. But, in the quest to grow as a writer and film critic, I feel it is important to express my thoughts when I DON'T like a film. "Queen of the Damned" is one of those films.

Anne Rice's popular horror stories of Lestat, a bisexual Vampire, first took to the screen in 1994 in the successful "An Interview With A Vampire". Starring two of Hollywood's biggest heavyweights in Tom Cruise and Brad Pitt, the film's stylish aesthetic and gothic mise en scene captured the audience. While it may have been a case of style way over substance, there was something about it that worked, despite its chessiness (I have never been that enamoured with the Vampire genre in general).

Since that time Brad Pitt and Tom Cruise have gone on to much bigger things. It's likely both would have roared with laughter when asked to appear in a sequel. They would have been laughing even harder when they saw the final outcome. "Queen of the Damned" typifies the type of cr*p Hollywood is content to put out at a low cost with the hope of earning a quick buck thanks to an average soundtrack and big marketing campaign aimed at 13 to 17 year olds.

Needless to say this film is terrible from the start. Lestat, now played by Brit Stuart Townsend of "Shooting Fish" fame, awakens from his dark grave to the sound of... you guessed it, Nu-Metal. He freaks out some confused punkish musicians and joins their band, under the proviso that he only appear at night, what with the sun burning his skin and all during the day...

Jesse (Marguerite Moreau), a student studying the paranormal (Vampire Studies 101 perhaps?), tries to find out if Lestat really is who he says he is. Along the way she falls for him (something to do with her odd past), but has a little competition in Queen Akasha (Aaliyah), a Vampire demon queen who is returning from the underworld to acquire Lestat as her chosen King.

The film is shamefully self-indulgant, yet its campy tone leaves some room for its depreciating humour. Anybody who sees this film for anything but a good laugh needs to see more films in general! Watching Townsend is enjoyable. He knows the role is utterly over the top and does his best to walk the tightrope between utter hamming and serious acting. The late Aaliyah is, unfortunately, terrible in the title role. She has minimal screentime, and what she does have she does not use to the fullest. The poor makeup and special effects do not help; at times she sounds like she's talking through a voicebox.

It is rumoured that this film was heading straight to video until Aaliyah's untimely death last year. With the possibility for people to see her final film, Warner Bros put this out to a general release. Otherwise this would have been one of those movies you see on the shelf at video shops but avoid because you can tell it is going to be simply terrible.

No doubt films like this will continue to be made. Look at the spate of teen rom-com rip offs around or the spoofing of that genre itself with films like "Not Another Teen Movie". If there is a market to exploit Hollywood will do so.

The biggest issue I have with this film is not the film itself. Hollywood is about making money, so if there is a market for this film then they will pursue it. That's business. But what concerns me the most is that people will actively go out to the cinema and pay money to watch it! I guess that's the biggest argument in the world of cinema: is film art first and entertainment second, or is it the other way around? The only people who can decide that is the audience. If you like and are intrigued by good films, stay clear of this turkey.


I remember all the hype around this movie when Aaliyah was killed. Being a fan of Ms. Rice's novels, my first thought was "how can they do Queen Of The Damned without doing Vampire Lestat first?"

Having finally seen the movie, now I can see how they did it. If you have read these books, imagine taking out the gory parts from Vampire Lestat, cramming Marcus and Marius into one character, and removing everything to do with Lestat's beginning (the wolf hunt, his violin playing, the Theatre Of The Vampires, and also Louis, Claudia, and Gabrielle), then in the last 15 minutes cramming in Queen Of The Damned.

What we loose is a very important piece of Lestat's character. His inner agony of having to kill to live, the fact that he carefully tries to select killers as his victims, and his love-hate relationship with Louis, Armand, Gabrielle, and all the other vampires.

Also important to the story is that we loose the "Story Of The Twins", which is the Genesis of Ms. Rice's vampires. And while I am sure the cannibalism was to intense for showing on the screen, they could have done something closer, and showed us more of ancient Egypt.

Even worse, we have this love interest thrown in between Jessie and Lestat. The Vampire Chronicles is basically an American Yoni story. For those that do not know, Yoni is another form of Hentai (Japanese Porn Comics). But in Yoni, it is about gay male relationships, told by a female. While I am sure many men object to the "gayness" of the characters, in this movie they went to the far extreme the opposite way. For instead of Lestat persueing killers, he goes after young female groupies.

And the other flaws in logic and storyline are vast. At the beginning Lestat emerges from a century long sleep, then later on asks Marius how he made it through the 1950's in red velvet. Marius has no idea who Elvis is, and says he slept through that period. Makes you wonder how Lestat knows about 50's fashion and music, since he slept through the same time period himself. And nothing is ever even mentioned about Louis, Claudia, or Gabrielle. I think that is a huge shame. Is like seeing "Snow White and the 3 Dwarfs".

Overall, the movie I thought was really bad. About the only good thing about it was the soundtrack. Most of the acting was poor, the accents drove me up the wall, and all of the really in-depth parts of the book were removed, leaving us only with a hollow shell, kind of like Enkil after he was sucked dry.

If you want to see a good modern vampire movie, get Lost Boys, the original Interview With A Vampire, or even some old episodes of Dark Shadows. Let this one Rest In Piece, with a stake through the heart, cloves of garlic around the neck, and a vial of Holy Water in the mouth.

In ending, remember that before Aaliyah was killed, this was intended to go straight to video, no theatrical release was planned. It is obvious now why this was. It is only sad that somebody as talented as she will be remembered for this dog of a movie, instead of something where she really might have shined.

I rate this a 2 on a scale of 1-10.


''Queen of the Damned '' is one of the worst adaptations of a book to a movie that I already saw. The only thing that I like in this movie is the soundtrack, anything else besides that.( Since I am a fan of Korn, Marilyn Manson, Chester Bennington of Linkin Park and Wayne Static of Static-X)

There are so many mistakes and so many bad choices that I don't even know how to start. So many stories were cut, like the twin's legend (one of my favorite)Armand and Daniel's relationship and even Louis is not present, to mention a few.(The plot was dead) First, they should have made a movie of ''The Vampire Lestat'', because it is the second book after ''The interview with the vampire'',and not ''Queen of Damned''. They tried to squeeze in a single movie so many informations, that you finish not getting almost anything unless you read the vampire chronicles.

So many meaningful characters doesn't seem to have a real importance in this movie. It is Pandora's case, for example.

The actors that they choose to play all the characters doesn't match with many of Anne Rice's descriptions, specially Marius, that is suppose to be a beautiful,tall,imposing blond guy with blue eyes, like Lestat. (Stuart Towsend is also far from being like Lestat) I didn't understand why they changed Lestat's maker to be Marius instead of Magnus as well.

''Interview with the vampire'' was an awesome movie, I loved the actors and Tom Cruise as Lestat was PERFECT and far superior then Stuart Townsend.(I am sad that Tom Cruise declined the chance of playing Lestat again) Only Antonio Bandeiras as Armand didn't match with Armand's looks, but anyway, far superior from this crap movie called '' The Queen of Damned''.

Anne Rice was so picky about Interview that I didn't get how she just sold the rights for this terrible production.


This is definitely the worst vampire flicks of all times. I started to watch this right after Interview With the vampire and I was thoroughly disappointed. Not only did this movie's script have craters as big as the grand canyon, the movie seemed to jump from one scene to another leaving the viewers thoroughly puzzled. The vampire Lestat played by Stuart Townsend was terrible-having a good body does not make you an actor! The end of the queen was too easy and sudden, insulting the viewers intelligence. I'll give this one star because Aaliyah actually tried her best in this movie and the soundtrack is pretty good. Other than that I would advice Anne Rice to take an ax and start hacking those who destroyed her brilliant story.


Even if I had not read Anne Rice's "Queen of the Damned" from the "Vampire Chronicles," I probably would still have thought this movie was just awful.

It was tasteless, plot-less, it made absolutely no sense at all. I sat for a while pondering the plot disassociated from the book, and the longer I thought of it, the worse it was. To associate it in any way with the prior Chronicles film is ridiculous as it is ridiculously inconsistent with that movie, let alone the book. The bare few ideas taken from Rice's genius in "The Vampire Chronicles" were butchered and ridiculed.

It is an absolute insult to Anne Rice fans everywhere and such a pathetic excuse for a legacy in being Aaliyah's last film. Truly, it's an insult to Aaliyah fans as well.

Possibly the only compliment can be paid to the sound effects as well as some of the graphics. Good as they may be, it is still not at all enough to make me regret the time spent watching this movie. As a matter of fact, I signed up for this membership for the sole reason of communicating to people bothering to look at this film (7 years after the release, as it may be) to not waste their time or expect much beyond disappointment.


Now don't get me wrong, I love seeing half naked chicks wiggling around. It's part of the fun of a Moroccan restaurant: ogling the belly dancers. But it doesn't make much of a plot.

My first major problem is the music. I have the feeling that when Ann Rice wrote "The Vampire Lestat", the Cure was more the style of the music he would have liked (though I could be wrong). I know relating to current "goth" music might have seemed like a good idea, but they did a horrific job incorporating it. Lestat was an actor with presumably a pretty good singing voice. That they chose Jonathan Davis to be his stage voice is heartbreaking.

Second, and someone else said it, mashing two very intricate books into one crappy movie is a bad idea. "Lestat" could have been a movie in it's own right, and a damn good one if done right. I honestly don't think "Queen of the Damned" lends itself to a movie very well. Though I would love to see a movie that incorporates a creation story, there's too much, how to word this, "inaction" in the book for it to be a very interesting movie. And the retelling they did soiled it pretty badly. Now mind you, it's been a long time since I've read it, I always thought "Lestat", "Tale of the Body Thief" and "Memnoch the Devil" were much more action packed and would have made better movies.

I know a lot of people (hey, myself included) who like a lot of cheesy vampire crap that thought this was absolutely the worst of the genre to be a major motion picture. I tend to agree with them there. Aaliyah had a nice body though.


This is one of the worst movies, I've ever seen. Not only, that it is a comedy, which isn't funny, but it's also very badly made with an over the top direction full of unnecessary split screens and other effects.

The two "heroes" with their fantasy language are just annoying and it confused me quite a lot, that they touched each others genitals all the time. But the worst of all that nonsense is the cheap attempt to give that movie some appeal, by referring to German history and to show sensitive aspects of the "heroes", which finds its climax in showing how Erkan and Stefan cure a mentally ill woman with their "joyful" lifestyle (!). But I hadn't expect anything better by director Michael "Bully" Herbig, who also made two not funny TV-shows, a not funny western movie and a nearly not funny SF-comedy movie. But Erkan and Stefan had been- just a little- better in some of their stand-up programs. For me the only good thing about the movie is Alexandra Neldel, who is very beautiful to me.


I have never before voted 1 for a movie on the IMDB, but for this one I am sorry the scale doesn't go down to -10.

All I can say abou this movie is that I saw it in a Sneak Preview, and it was my worst movie experience ever. I don't mind the stupid jokes. I can live with the silly story. But when I see those dumbly grinning "main characters" with their pseudo-foreign speech (only Germans will understand what I talk about), I felt I kind of loathing I never thought I was capable of. (If they had left them out, the thing may actually have been acceptable...).

There's not much more to be said about this one. You may laugh once or twice, because it's so ridiculous, but that doesn't make it any better. It is definitely not funny.

If you live outside of Germany, be happy and rejoice that this awful work will most likely never make it to your cinemas.

If you do live in Germany, avoid this movie at all costs.


It's nice that these three young directors have produced films with good productions values and decent acting. There's some good work here.

Unfortunately they suffer from what afflicts much of modern gay cinema; recycled plots, too familiar devices (i have seen the "pool" setting way too many times in gay male films) and hackneyed scripts. Most egregious of all is "Dorothy" whose preposterous premise is that a cute young guy will have trouble getting laid in NYC due to a shortage of identifiable availabe gay guys in his vicinity.

In terms of cinema these shorts play like tacky little gay afterschool specials. Not a lot of imagination in their writing or execution; basically they follow a point-and-shoot, shot/reaction shot/master shot convention which becomes painfully dull after five or so minutes. There's hope for queer cinema in the works of Todd Haynes, Sadie Benning and the late, great Marlon Riggs...but not here. These films are incredibly middlebrow, singularly whitebread and their values basically pander to a gay bourgeois sensibility. Which is probably why they play so well at gay film festivals.


Specks of white and various shapes, a beautiful nude, random images. That is what this little experimental short film is.

It's kind of interesting to think how in the early days of film such images could be transferred onto film, but despite my love of a lot of surreal images and films, and a fascination with the bizarre, this film just didn't do it for me.

I'm not sorry I watched it, but if there is any underlying meaning in it, I don't get it. Visually, it is not that outstanding, in my humble opinion. As an example of dadaism, I suppose it would fit in quite well, since it seems to reject any semblance of logic or reason, though I would have preferred that it do it in a more visually interesting way.

But to each his own.


OK. Well, I guess it was worth my time sitting through this *once* but I won't be watching it again. There are several things about this film that irritated me.

First, man...I really hated the characters. I had the same problem with Sid and Nancy. I have a hard time rationalizing spending a fair chunk of time following characters who I really don't care about, and can't relate to. It's not that the actors or the writing were technically bad; it was that the characters were written in such a way that I just had contempt for them, and as the movie went on, I almost wanted to see the sky fall on them. And this leads me to the second problem, and a question which I think is at the heart of this movie: Was the intent to simply document this generation and these types of bohemians who were (I guess) wandering around Europe in the 60s? Was the intent to criticize and lambaste them? Or was this film some kind of a warning? My final assessment of the film (that is to say, in determining if there was anything salvageable here at all) hinges on this question.

Regardless, these characters are really unlikeable, and as a consequence, it's hard to really give a crap about the plot or what happens to them. If this was some sort of statement on this generation, then the film becomes a little more tolerable. It is clear that Schroeder is not some kind of geriatric establishment square, so the way he proceeds here carries more weight than, say, the countless stupid AIP films set in or concerning the 60s counterculture.

At bare minimum, this film has two things going for it - first, the soundtrack (obviously). I like how Cymbaline is used here and others have mentioned it too, as it takes the forefront in the movie. I am guessing that if you are a Pink Floyd fan and want to see it for that reason, nothing you read here is likely to stop you from watching it anyway (it wouldn't stop me either). The curiosity of hearing Pink Floyd in a movie may be enough to just barely get you through this.

Secondly, there is some nice scenery. Ibiza looks like a nice place to visit. Maybe I'm just sick of looking at Los Angeles, New York, and Chicago in films, but European films which take the time to actually show us Europe (the beautiful or the ugly - mostly beautiful here) are always welcome.

But I really see no particular genius here. No revolutionary camera work, not even a moral, tone, message, sensibility, or plot that has anything new to say. Perhaps what was revolutionary about this was merely that it came from a guy like Schroeder - a film critical of a mindset that at least in part made his movies marketable. To that extent it is an honest film; there's no glorification of the abject excesses of the 60s here, which is perhaps something you might expect. In fact, the portrayal of the characters in this film closely mirrors the (somewhat distorted, in my opinion) modern cultural memory of that generation.

Oh yeah, bunch of (yawn) nudity and sex here; nothing new if you watch these kinds of movies from this time period. I guess it was considered novel or provocative or something at the time. I don't find it offensive or titillating (I doubt you will either); rather it just extends the running time of an already tedious film. In its own way, this particular use of sexuality in movies of the time (especially European ones) has become a bit of a cliché. But I guess in hindsight you can't blame them; they were just in that decade able to "get away with it" and I suppose (I'm guessing here) the very presence of this kind of graphic sexuality was a political or social statement in and of itself (That being that sexuality was a part of life that this generation wasn't going to be all weird about like their parents were).

Should you watch it? If you're a Pink Floyd fan, sure...I guess it's worth a watch. In any case, The Valley is a better film. I went into this movie expecting largely what I got. If you don't normally watch these kinds of arty, avant garde films and don't know what to expect, this is bound to be annoying as hell. This is a normal, healthy reaction :)

If you're not a Pink Floyd fan, I'm not sure why you'd spend your time here. I noticed one fellow who left a comment did enjoy this movie quite a lot, so maybe I'm just missing something. I don't need guys running in slow motion from fireballs, special effects, explosions, or anything like that to enjoy a movie. But I do need some kind of handle - I need to find something to like about a movie, and generally I need to sympathize with some aspect of the characters' plight (barring that some novel film-making will work; camera-work and so forth). Here, there's just nothing to hold on to except for Pink Floyd's magnificence. Which is *just enough* to make this tolerable. At bare minimum, if you're a Pink Floyd fan to begin with, you'll like the bit with Cymbaline, I promise.


The only reason anyone remembers this steaming load of fecal matter is because it was scored by Pink Floyd. (Or as they were known then, "The Pink Floyd".) Stefan, a really annoying Eurotrash hitchhiker, hooks up with American model Estelle and they proceed to get high and naked throughout the whole movie...

And the point of this is, what exactly? That drugs are bad? Or only heroin (horse) is? The problem becomes that you don't give a crap about the characters, and for that matter, even Pink Floyd wasn't up to their best work. When Steffan overdoses at the end, you are almost glad to be rid of him because he was so annoying.


Great music, but ain't these people PATHETIC?!? A true period piece of The Trippy Sixties, and it left me depressed. The director paints the wrong side of the jetset life and it stings as a hornets nest. If the culture of the time led people to do these things, it appears to me that it was all a journey of no discovery, only despair. I tried, really tried, to like this film, but these people aren't anywhere on my page. Yes, it would be nice to see the world, go away for awhile, but I always plan to come BACK. Drugs aren't the cause of these characters' downfalls, it's their lousy attitudes  these guys passionately drink their cup of poison. They cheapen their lives, and in the end, cheapen the journey that is life. Has romance ever been so dark?

Cheers: Interesting scenery. Wonderful soundtrack by Pink Floyd.

Caveats: Dated. Drugs. Depressing. Thoroughly unlikable characters; they aren't flower children.

Only for the curious, since most packages swoon The Pink Floyd connection. ( Rare Floyd tracks many will have never heard before, as FM ain't what it was. )

Rating: Two Stars.


Like many other people, I've heard about "more" and I wanted to watch it due to the music that was composed by Pink Floyd. I must say that I was truly disappointed, not because of the music but the movie in itself. it's a boring insipid movie that lacks rhythm. Where does this disappointment come from? According to me, from different things. First of all, the movie's subject, the drug links up badly with the idle sunny atmosphere of the movie. This one should have taken place in the sordid areas of Paris and should have gave birth to a dark and helpless climate,for example. Moreover, it's supposed to tell a descent into hell but this descent is softened and barely sketched out. Barbet Schroeder doesn't insist enough on the dramatic side of the story. You could have wished a little more of madness, cutting. On another hand, Schroeder doesn't succeed in gaining the audience's emotion and adherence in front of the two main characters' distress. You watch carelessly their trials with drug. Whereas the two main actors, they're perfectly inexpressive and hardly evolve during the movie, especially Mimsy Farmer. At the end, you only retain the beauty of the mediterraneans landscapes bathed in sunlight. The film created a huge sensation when it was released in 1969. Nowadays, it

seems dated. The hippy culture is nothing less than a faraway memory.


"More" is yet another addition into the countless pile of 60's druggie, trippy junk. Avoid at all cost. Terrible acting, equally moribund script. The only thing to enjoy is Pink Floyd's wonderful soundtrack, which is too good for stereotypical waste like this.


OK, so she doesn't have caller ID. When you are being stalked, you GET IT! And no cell phone? When you are being stalked, you GET ONE if you are one of the few full time working parents that is the head of the household that doesn't own one already. This mom gets a big ZERO in the parenting department. So her mom is in the hospital and she decides a shopping trip will help her out. Just a stupid movie. Glad I have Tivo and a FF button on the remote.And what is with the 10 line minimum, I just don't have that much to say about such a bad movie. I guess I can ask why she keeps opening packages that she has no clue who they are from. The son really didn't add much to the movie either. The cops were a big ol zero too. Now get to the nearest Verizon and get the darn cell phone. @@


Warning: This may contain SPOILERS!!

First of all I watch a lot Lifetime movies and realize they are just that....Lifetime movies. Some are great (really), some are good and some are bad. Unfortunately this movie falls into the latter category. It actually started out with some potential....single, divorced hard working mom (who gets out of work at 2:00 AM) cuts a guy off while driving home from work and let's just say he doesn't take it too well. The stalking begins immediately with phone call hang ups and escalates to her home being broken into and completely trashed. So she goes to her mother's for the night and the next morning her mother's car blows up. This seems to be just a pain in the butt for our heroine who deals with it by going underwear and jewelry shopping!!! So the police put her and her son in a local motel for safe keeping and what does Mom do? She goes off to work leaving the kid all alone at night in a strange motel room and tells him to order a PIZZA!!! I couldn't believe it! Then it really gets stupid! And the ending just made me angry because it was so ridiculous and typical. Too bad because it seemed to have possibilities.


Bad news for anyone wanting to film a full-length parody of a Lifetime Network movie- the makers of A Deadly Encounter have already done it, albeit unintentionally. All of the Lifetime tropes are there- a divorced mother in peril from a deranged stalker, an unreliable ex-husband (who, of course, cheated on her while they were married), and a police department that patronizingly dismisses her complaints, forcing her to Stand Up For Herself. Especially jaw-dropping is the scene where the heroine, after enduring a break-in and the attempted murder of her mother by her seemingly ubiquitous stalker, decides to relieve the stress by going shopping! Having seen first hand the harassment of a co-worker by some creep she met at church, I know stalking is not a joke, but it certainly is in this movie.


I have no idea who these others are but this movie is plain awful. They have to prop up Joe Pesci when he is a minor character. Bait and switch movie just like the studios did with Adam Sandler and Jim Carrey, etc. The DVD I watched states "this obscure gem revolves around JOe Pesci's MOB character who is a hothead that start a war" etc. etc. Joe plays the part of Joe, he does not even carry a gun, plays a whimpy character and gets SPOILER - (whacked). So much for the movie revolving around Pesci. The only halfway memorable scene was a bad attempt at comedy when they passed gas while waiting for a score. If you watch this movie after reading this, I warned you. Please stop and do not lose 87 minutes of your life.


Above all, you must not take this movie seriously. It takes itself seriously, unfortunately, but that can't be helped. This anime ninja flic has to be the crowning achievement in spoiling what could have been an endearing, if unoriginal, story with bad plot twists, ridiculous time-killing cutscenes, and one outrageous guest appearance which will either make you laugh or groan (or both, like me).

While I'm typically a fan of ninja/samurai anime (Ninja Scroll and Rurouni Kenshin to name a few), this one has to be the exception. For the record, from a technical point of view of its time, this movie was very well animated and constructed. It is just the plot that stunk. The authors of this movie clearly decided (for what rational reason I don't know) that they could somehow make up for the lack of a script if the character halfway around the world in search of a treasure that (he learns) his father fought and died for. In the process, he saves a black slave named Sam, meets a French girl who is living in an Apache village, makes friends with a ninja clan whose members then try to kill him, meets more family members then he knew he had in the weirdest places and circumstances (and whom all subsequently die at some point in the movie).

Even so far, these ludicrous plot twists could be excused, but then come the two "guest appearances". #1: After having a ridicuously cliche showdown with two cowboys, Jiro meets a man who introduces himself as "Mark Twain". At this point, you're probably saying "What the ****?!!" This "meeting" serves one purpose: it entirely discredits a movie which tries to add to itself an educated historical background. I found it disappointing that the authors went to all this trouble to research the 1860s US and didn't manage to realize that "Mark Twain's" real name was Samuel Clemens. #2: When Jiro finally finds the treasure, it turns out that it used to belong to Captain Kidd. I can hear the groans of disgust now.

Finally, there are the running scenes. These scenes show various characters running, with the landscape moving statically behind them, for several minutes, and there are a lot of them. It is these scenes which make this movie, 2hrs 12 min, to seem to last a week and a half.

If you and your friends are looking for a bad subtitled movie that just asks to be made fun of, this is it. Feel free to poke fun at every possible aspect of it, and have fun. Just don't take it seriously. 3/10


What can be said about a movie that makes two hours seem like three weeks? The hero starts out in ninjaville, Japan, goes through an identity crisis (saving a shinobi), makes a voyage to America (saving a slave named Sam) engages in a little wild west action (saving a French/japanese native american named Julie), goes hunting pirate's gold, and then heads back to Japan to fight a war. The film obviously has no clue where it's going at any point in time; I think the director modeled each scene after the last movie he'd watched. If you're going to watch this film, I suggest renting the subtitled so you and your peers can openly discuss how dumb the movie is without speaking over the movie, potentially missing another dumb plot twist.

Movies the director was watching during the making of this movie - An American Tail, Fievel Goes West, Star Wars, Indiana Jones, The Goonies, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, Kung Fu, Vampire Hunter D, The Ten Commandments.

Notes of Interests - Most fear inspiring line of all time. About 90 minutes (or 19 days) into the movie, the lead character has just bested an American villain, and just as one heads to the vcr to end the pain the hero proclaims "Let's go back to Japan", and the agony continues for another week.


I have been living in Istanbul for 24 years and I (a 39 years of experience would suggest) do know what Istanbul has gone through all those years.

Faith Akin is still quite young (born in 1973) and falling in the great mistake of being ORIENTALIST when looking at Turkey (just as his other movie Gegen Die Wand did) This movie SERIOUSLY LACK contemporary urban Turkish life AND MISLEADS the audience when giving out (quite false) clues as to the geographical and cultural spreading of Istanbul.

Anyone who could speak Turkish could easily attest that many underground bands & groups depicted in the movie (Siyasiyabend for one ) are SO MISERABLE and their members cannot even speak a proper language that they cannot be taken as 'representatives' of the contemporary Turkish music. Much less a piece of crap which many Turkish listeners even do not know about at all.

We Turks have long been accustomed to 'superficious' westerners who look at Turkey with some Orientalist point of view: trying to fit the actual Turkish image into their mind molds.. What is new in this movie is the fact that now a Turkish originated director (Faith Akin) is making the same mistake: Looking at Turkey with some false western glasses and scrambling to depict it as if he understands better. All of a vain effort.

Just ask any Turkish friend of yours: What sort of a musical documentary is this without mentioning the names : Zeki Muren, Baris Manco, Ajda Pekkan, Teoman, Muslum Gurses, Ibrahim Tatlises, Ferdi Ozbegen?.. and many others who have SHAPED so far the real MUSIC we are listening today?

Faith Akin has a long long lesson to learn before babbling away and confusing other people's minds with false images about the contemporary Turkish Music.


There are shows and films I've seen and subsequently read reviews of on IMDb.com that I've disagreed with, and been happy to accept that there has just been a difference of opinion.

Reading positive reviews of this filth merely puts me in mind of a sinister conspiracy involving TV network employees being ordered to browse the internet, posting unconvincingly positive reviews for programmes they themselves are responsible for.

How else would one explain a review opining that this show is "sure to become a phenomenon" a full year after it's become clear its going to be nothing of the sort?

I won't waste words describing this mess, but suffice to say if you enjoy, wives who emasculate their husbands, husbands who emasculate their sons, children who are disrespectful jackasses towards their parents and absolutely no other threads of behaviour or subtext to legitimise characters that are basically just unfunny one-liner spewing automatons, then watch this show.

I, on the other hand, have some Seinfeld DVDs to get through.

Futurama - Cancelled. TItus - Cancelled. Arrested Development - Cancelled. The War At Home - Renewed.

No justice.


I watched the first episode of "The War at Home" because I thought it was worth replacing "Arrested Development", boy, was I disappointed. It should be clear to everyone that this show was blatantly ripped-off of "Grounded for Life", "Titus", and "Married...with Children" since they are all similar in plot and overall mood. The so called "punch lines" are all repetitious and formulaic, even more, those "punch lines" aren't even funny at all, to me, they're more along the lines as being crass and crude. The main character Dave Gold acts like a white trash thug, who thinks he's being funny and cool, which he's not. (Even Hillary (Dave's daughter) said so in the episode "Gaza Strip").

In the episode "Dream Crusher", Hillary wanted to be a singer {but was actually pretty bad}, Dave and Vicky then gladly decided to crush her dreams by telling her she sucked. After that, she then wanted to be a child psychologist and planned on going to Harvard, after telling Dave and Vicky so and left the room, the two of them began mindlessly mocking her. Also, in the first episode Dave said of Hillary's {black} boyfriend "Does she actually think we're gonna let her go out with this guy? I'd rather drink my own urine", that line has to the dumbest line in the history of television. And Dave is constantly making fun of Larry (his son) when he breaks the fourth wall because he thinks he's gay and is a geek. Also, let's not forget that he also made fun of Larry's (fat) girlfriend. Dave is the father he's supposed to stand up for his son no matter what. "The War at Home" is without a doubt the worst TV show for family. That clearly explains why the show should be canceled since it spreads a racism and homophobic agenda. It's like the show wants to be funny for always putting in that stupid laugh track every time someone says something, but the lines are all somewhat forced, idiotic and pathetically juvenile.

Another reason why the show's horrible is the acting, Mike Rappaport and Kyle Sullivan are terrible, terrible actors. Rappaport has to always move his hands around when he's in front of the camera, he not only does this on this show but he also did that during his time with "Boston Public". Sullivan talks and acts like some kind of robot every time he acts (he also did this in "Malcolm in the Middle"}.

So to wrap this whole thing up, you all got your reasons of what's wrong with this show 1.It's unoriginal 2.The acting sucks 3.It's not even funny 4.All the jokes are the same 5.Has lousy script 6.The characters are pitiful and unlikable 7.The dad's a rip-off of Archie Bunker

FOX needs to take this trash off the air, because anything's better than this.


What Fox's fascination with dysfunctional families, made up of mean, obnoxious, spoiled kids, and parents who are determined to be cool, as opposed to being a parent?? I'm sorry, I don't get it. The one episode that I was barely able to stomach watching involved one of the kids demanding a Bar Mitzvah, with the intention of getting thousands of dollars in gift money. Of course, the idiot mother decides that her precious little junior has to have the biggest and bes-test party of all, and has no problem dropping 20 grand on the big event. The ditzy, brain dead, boy crazy teenage daughter bounces back and forth between wanting to be Jewish and then Catholic, when she see's the "cute" religious tutors.

The one borderline "heartwarming" moment in the entire episode, was when the putz of a father, who has been convinced the entire time that the Bar Mitzvah is solely a money making scheme, see's the son studying his Hebrew lessons, and is momentarily duped into thinking that perhaps, his conniving offspring is being sincere about the right of passage into manhood. This warm, fuzzy feeling is immediately ripped out of his chest when he informs junior that since he has not yet had a bris, a certain "procedure" needs to be performed. The Bar Mitzvah is called off, and the mother is out several thousands of dollars when the kid refuses to comply.

This show is garbage, and I am saddened that I shall never get back the 23 minutes of my life I wasted watching this piece of crap, because nothing else was on TV ...


I'm one of those gluttons for punishment when it comes to sitcoms these days-I still will check them out every once in a while.My observation is that most of them aren't very funny even the ones on major networks that are getting high ratings ,I just don't get who is finding them gut busting funny. While a few have made me crack a smile ,none of them made me laugh out loud,I usually change the channel after a few minutes. Now on the FOX network they churn out new shows like changing your underwear,for some reason they think they can make a good sitcom,wrong dead wrong. They have beat this dead horse so much it is to the point of hiring just anyone they can find to write a crappy pilot with bad dialog and just churn them out.Let's take a brief look at the latest piece of junk that Fox has churned out called "The War At Home"

I watched about 5 minutes of it and that was generous. In this particular episode,the daughter is mouthing off to her parents doing the I'm an adult now rant.The dad gets fed up tells her "OK fine,go ahead and do whatever you want,If you screw up it's your problem" to which she replies"Well I guess your mad but hey at least I didn't get AIDS"(cue the laugh track,no way that can be a live audience unless they have been paid to applaud such garbage)-I found the crack about not having AIDS to be in such bad taste. Well hey at least I don't have to watch any more of this crap. Take a hint FOX, stop wasting your time with sitcoms.OK well you have the Simpsons but it is now getting really old and tired as well.


A stupid show in the vein of the rest of them with terrible music and a laugh track that must be from I Love Lucy. I got rid of TV because of shows like this, but picked up the 1st season at big lots for $3.00. Should bought the Van Damme movie instead.

If I was a conspiracy theorist, who believed that a small group of people are working against real families and keep coming up with this drivel/propaganda in order to undermine family values I would point to this show, Married With Children, Family Guy etc. but I'm not so I won't.

BTW I'm not Christian, love the Simpsons and Peep show. I watched two episodes and thought that if shows like this are popular, who are they popular with? Then I remembered all those fotos of the people of Walmart that have been circulating around the web and thought ah ha!. It is no wonder our culture is a joke around the world when this is prime time.


WHAT WAS HE THINKING?!?!?! How sad an actor as tremendously talented as Michael Rapaport- who stole our hearts in "Mighty Aphrodite" and fascinated us in "Ill Town"- has sunk to this pathetic level. The writing on this sitcom is the crust left on the bottom of the barrel after it has been scraped. Shame on all involved. There is a trend: major movie actors that are no longer hot merchandise are turning to TV- often with disastrous results (reference the stinkaroos on CBS and NBC; however, ABC has a hit with "Boston Legal"- hip writing and great nostalgic use of Bill Shatner). To waste Michael Rapaport in this "All In The Family" rip-off is an insult to viewers and mostly Michael himself.


I grew up watching sitcoms such as Seinfeld, Roseanne, Simpsons, etc. etc. in other words mainstream television. Over the years many sitcoms have come on the air and of those a very small percentage are genuinally smart and funny. The War at Home is a prime example of the majority of modern American comedy.

I give the show a 3 out of 10 because it is what it aims to be, a comedy, but it doesn't seem to go out of its way to be a good comedy. A good comedy should have you swept off your feet with its big jokes, you shouldn't be able to see them coming and in TWAH I see just about every joke coming. The characters are probably the most simplistic and horrible stereotypes I have seen yet on screen, and the acting isn't very good save for the father who portrays a stereotypical beer drinking sport loving American idiot perfectly.

Poor acting, unbelievable characters, and jokes that don't catch you off guard detract from this show to a point of where it is unwatchable. If you don't have cable and would like to see a comedy worth watching, try Boston Legal. It is more worth your time.


This show drives me crazy. It goes against everything a family should be, even if it is intended to be a comedy. The show is suppose to follow Dave and Vicky Gold (Michael Rapaport and Anita Barone) as they raise their three teenage children: Hilary, Larry, and Mike. A good premises for a comedy yes but it does not mean it will be a good show.

I don't think I've ever heard cruder talk from parents to children and vice versa. The only talk that seems to be in the show is control of children by the parents and sex. I know that sexual intercourse is usually a subject talked about by teenagers often but it is brought up in nearly every episode with no point to it. The one episode I was just watching involved the parents giving their daughter, Hilary a car, not once do you think they are related in anyway by the way they talk to each other and how the parents talk about how Hilary is like "their slave."

The show fails on the comedy level the most. I haven't laughed at this show once in the numerous times I have attempted to watch it, and I'm a person who gave such films as Animal House and Dumb and Dumber very high marks. Michael Rapaport is a very good actor and why he choose to ruin his career by making this piece of filth show is beyond me.

Parents, make sure your children never and I mean never watch this. Teenagers, you'll probably get a laugh out of this just for the blatant sexual references but nothing comes out of it and afterwards you feel rather empty.

1 1/2/ 5 Stars.


How can stuff like this still be made? Didn't Seinfeld, Arrested Development, The Office etc etc kill this old-fashioned unfunny crap off? Apparently not...

I'm actually quite a fan of Michael Rappaport and have enjoyed his various cameos and supporting roles (Copland , Friends) but in this he sucks but anyone would struggle with this script.

My wife enjoys it. But she's Brazilian. And if you've ever seen a typical Brazilian sit-com you would understand why she would think this so funny.

Just to demonstrate how predictable the show is and to prove a point with her I guessed what the next 3 or 4 plot developments/lines would be while watching it for a while and was correct almost word for word! I felt very smug. This annoyed my wife as she hates it when I do that (can understand why but I felt good so screw-it!)


You've seen the same tired, worn out clichéd sit-com stories, characters, stories 1000's of times beforeonly this excels at sucking more than others. First and foremost there isn't a single character in this show that's even remotely likable...in particular Michael Rapaport's. Dave Gold is by far one of the biggest asses ever to grace a television screen ever...repugnant comes to mind. If in real life a father was this unlikable, cruel and just generally unfit to parent...fratricide would be your only option. To call the remaining characters stereotypes, would be too complementary. If these characters ended up on life-support the line to pull the plug would be light years long. How this show finished one complete season, much less 2 is a mystery. FOX cancels "Arrested Development" and keeps this on the air??? You tell me the terrorists aren't winning.


How is it in this day and era, people are still dumb enough to think that other dumb stuff is smart? Maybe dumb people like watching stuff that makes them feel smart. Such as 'The War At Home'. 'Cuss it's even dumber than the dumb people who watch it. There are no jokes, only half-jokes and slight gags that barely even warrant a tiny internal smile. The acting is your typical, unsubtle, idiotic, standard sitcom flailing-limbs type acting. And why oh why did this crap replace arrested development? Well you gotta hand it to Fox. They know that they need to have stupid shows to attract all the stupid viewers. You see, the reason Arrested Development wasn't massively popular was because it was so smart. It was so smart that it made dumb people feel bad about being so dumb. And of course, if a dumb person encounters a smart person, the dumb person will hate the smart person. Most of the time anyway. Either that, or try and mooch off of the smart person. If you like this show, and are one of the dumb people, I truly cannot fathom what it must be like not to have open eyes and open minds. I cannot fathom what it must be like to be mindless, laughing drones, influenced by every little thing. Basically, people who laugh with a laugh track are parrots. Trained, obedient, mindless parrots. Maybe I shouldn't insult parrots by comparing them to you. You know who you are. (If I seem like a bastar* in this review, it's because I'm so annoyed at AD being canceled.)


I finally managed to sit through a whole episode of this show. I was very, very tired. Clearly. Previously I would always have to turn it off because I thought it was that bad. Watching a full episode convinces me that it really is that bad. I couldn't even tell you what happened but I distinctively remember not laughing. For people who think this is the new All in the Family or Married with Children...have you ever actually WATCHED those shows? They are well written and well acted and most importantly, funny! This show is NOT funny. You might think so if this is the first sitcom you have ever watched. I cannot see who else would. I echo all previous sentiments about Arrested Development, etc... It's probably my own fault for getting frustrated with television and not watching it, thereby allowing the stupid people to dictate what actually stays on the air.


I would label this show as horrendous if it weren't for the fact that it's on the same network as Arrested Development. Because it is on FOX and getting renewed while AD got cancelled.

It is absolutely beyond words how atrocious this show actually is. But let me try and describe it. Take an extremely low rate Archie Bunker and have him spout out humor that would have been out of date if it were on Married with Children. Then take great plot lines from AD (son has an ugly, boring girlfriend) and dumb them down so the idiots who watch sitcoms can understand them.

If you watch this, I will have completely lost respect for you, as should your family. However, if you are a fan, you should love FOX's new comedy 'Til Death. Looks like real funny, cutting-edge stuff. I mean, married couples not getting along ... brilliant.


This show is just another bad comedy which will probably be cancelled after two seasons. It's not just that the jokes are sexist/racist/homophobic, they're also not funny and clichéd. In the first episode the Father said something along the lines of ' I wish women didn't go out and get jobs and have the same rights as men blah blah blah' That really helps attitudes huh? Then he was making fun of his son saying he was weird. What parent says their kid is weird? So overall this show is boring, unoriginal, offencive, clichéd and most of all NOT FUNNY. Yeah American Dad's offencive. But it does also make you laugh and is obviously taking the micky. Thats the difference.


The actors & actresses on this series are OK, but the scripts have been absolutely horrible. This family is so dysfunctional that they are not even funny. In fact, the scripts illustrate very often how not to be a parent. The scripts are so bad, they make Homer Simpson look like a better father than this one.

Anyone who is becoming a parent, if you want to see what not to do with your kids, this show is the perfect guide. I think the garbage this show feeds us, is beyond words.

Michael Rapaport has seen much better material in his career (including his role in HITCH). They need a strong lead in & better, much better scripts than what I have seen to this point.

If you think this is generational, my teenager even turned off one show of this because they thought it was horrible.


This is easily the worst, most offensive piece of crap on TV. I'd love to completely ignore it but Fox has stuck it into their Sunday lineup, forcing me to find something else to watch between American Dad and Family Guy. The dink-head male star guy is just about the least evolved, pathetic excuse for a human I have ever seen on TV. Nothing on the show is remotely funny and pretty much everything on it has been done already and much better by other shows.

It's obvious that their strategy is to ram it deep and hard into the Sunday schedule and hope someone starts liking it... but I have to break it to ya, Fox, thats the wrong hole. The scam not worked on me - I simply look elsewhere - but come on, you freaking boneheads, this show freaking SUCKS, and it sucks even worse when compared to the rest of the Fox Sunday lineup.

THEY CANCELLED ARRESTED DEVELOPMENT FOR THIS STEAMING PILE?


I cringed when I heard the first canned laugh track in the first few seconds of the show but yet I gave it a chance. You KNOW when someone offers a line which is only slightly amusing and you hear an obviously fake laugh track explode in uproarious laughter that it's a show aimed at morons who need to be told "yes, it's funny, go ahead and laugh".

Ugh. I couldn't stand this show as it revealed itself. I can't speak for everyone - after all some people actually like that IDIOTIC show "Stacked" (which makes me wish to vomit). I can imagine those who like "Stacked" might actually like this drivel, too. Some people still get a kick out of the old "pull my finger" gag. To me, this show is just about as witty - and just about as original.

The themes were old and tired. The jokes were lame and hackneyed. The characters were ones we've seen everywhere before - and the worst of any you might imagine.

So... if you like things like burping words and neighbors who say "pull my finger"... you might actually like this show. Otherwise... pass it by. It's stupid - and not in a clever or original way. This one is about as old and tired as any show has ever been at its premiere.


If you haven't seen "The War at Home", let me tell you what you've been missing. It's a show about ethnic diversity and sexuality that could have only been edgy and funny in the 60's. Where America has grown in it's acceptance of race, sexual preference, religion, etc... this show seems to argue with that progress. It's a backward step in America's evolution.

For example, one of the ongoing jokes of the show is that the WHITE daughter is dating a BLACK kid from school. This is obviously hilarious seeing as how you can't see that type of relationship at any mall in America. I've lived in both small towns and big cities, so don't give me some type of red state, blue state excuse. Not only is this the joke, but the father, who is supposedly not racist, finds this disturbing and asks his daughter repeatedly to break up with her boyfriend, which opposes his "he may sound like a racist, but he's just dumb" character.

If this isn't enough, a second running joke is that one of the sons, and soon to be metro-sexual, is ambiguous in his sexual orientation. The audience learns over and over that he isn't gay, but the father isn't convinced, so he constantly avoids his son, afraid perhaps that his son will hit on him, as all gay men are nymphomaniac wild men, who can't control their will. The father always comes to some acceptance of his son, once per show, but usually goes on avoiding him in the following episode.

The only way this show can cure itself in my eyes is if the continuous exposure to these "unnatural occurrences in life", open up the father's eyes a little, but that may be too much to ask - and besides, with jokes like these, I'm sure we'll have hilarity in episodes to come like - Episode 13, "Father Votes Against Women Voters", and Episode 14, "My Muslim Neighbor is a Terrorist".

Please drop this show, FOX. We're living in a different world from the one your execs grew up in.


Robert Montgomery-Myrna Loy farce about Loy (Irene) and her fiancé, played by Reginald Owen, stranded in Labrador when their plane crashes. (That's really what should have happened to this highly predictable film.) Montgomery lives there while he is waiting for his fiancé.

Surprise! Montgomery and Loy are soon attracted to each other. The scene with the bear is so contrived. We knew it was a tamed bear all along.

Complications ensue when Clara shows up. Loy wants Montgomery to tell Clara that they should part ways, when he refuses, she wants to leave at once.

You don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure out how this will end. Out with all that snow, it's just too cold for anyone!


This is a piece of celluloid CRAP. You can tell when you are watching a "wanna be" mafia film....and this is it. This made NO SENSE at all, didnt start at the beginning of his life, charactors were all over the place...and the TERM "GODFATHER" didnt even EXIST until PUZO wrote the book!.....THEN, the real mafia, borrowed the PHRASE and made it their own AFTER the movie.....THIS piece of claptrap would have one thinking that the phrase (representing the mafia don) was used back in the 20's...when these people were only called "DON"....outside of the original Godfather movie, if you want to see another decent mob flick, check out Puzo's The Last Don (part 1) part 2 sucked.


The hero John Keem is going after some drug dealers who kidnaps girls for some reason. On his journey he uses karate and kung fu moves and I don't believe he got hit a single time during the movie. This is Crap.


The acting was bad, and the plot, well i don't think there was one.

Some fat blonde chap who is always dressed in a dinner suit, kidnaps a sort from a nightclub, i think he then kills a copper. pointless fights then happen Kidnapped girl is put in cage on a boat, why? Tough uncompromising martial arts trained cop turns up, speaks bad english and does stuff that does not make sense. Its utter tripe. But he does have a nice car. christ on a bike, this film was a waste of 90 minutes.


1 Bolo Yeung is in the movie ten minutes altogether including when he's serving iced drinks to his boss. 2 a lot of street thugs looking like junkyard keepers get instantly overpowered by the Asian superhero who talks like an illegal alien just out of the back of a manure truck. 3 (thug) let this to me -shirt off, gay model like muscles- heee-haaw! hee-heeew! hap hap! - he's dead on the floor with his neck, elbow, chin or balls broken - 4 cheap semi-sex scenes where the white broad come out of nowhere digs the Asian superhero. 5 Norton (former C action movies star ) does nothing but pose as an eccentric trendy weapon smuggler who traffics white slutty girls hand picked at a night club where they willingly follow some idiot posing as a millionaire snapping at them ( you reap what you sow ) 6 yes, the local police captain is involved and yes, the first butchered cop is the former patrol teammate of the super-hero ( yaawn! ). 7 Action scenes are fake, like A) hee-haw! Chinese tries some spinning kick B) skinny leg of Chinese to the throat of negro thug C) finishing death move to his head too much like Walker Texas ranger fake action 8 end titles finally

utter rubbish. Those people are good enough only to be stand ins or body doubles in other C movies and be credited AT MOST collectively as "stunt crew provided by the county prison ".


While I agree that this was the most horrendous movie ever made, I am proud to say I own a copy simply because myself and a bunch of my friends were extras (mostly in the dance club scenes, but a few others as well. This movie had potential with Bolo and the director of Enter the Dragon signed on, but as someone who was on set most every day I can tell you that Robert Clouse was an old and confused individual, at least during the making of this movie. It was a wonder he could find his way to the set everyday. I would also like to think that this might have been a better movie if a lot of it had not been destroyed in a fire at Morning Calm studios. I can't say that it would have been for sure, but it would be nice to think so. I was actually surprised that it was ever released, and that someone like Bolo would attach his name to it without a fight. Oh well. Also look at the extras for pro wrestler Scott Levy, AKA Raven. He was a wrestler in Portland at the time...nice guy, very smart.


I saw this on sale - NEW - at my local store for $6 and said "hey! an action film with that guy from Bloodsport and Enter the Dragon, directed by the guy who did Enter the Dragon - and it's cheap!" So I bought it. Oops! This is possibly the worst film I've ever seen, and I've seen some doozies.

You know how movies which are intentionally campy, like Evil Dead II and Dead-Alive, are AWESOME? You know how movies that are supposed to be serious but turned out so awful that you have to laugh out loud, and watch them again, like Lionheart (an old Van Damme film) or John Carpenter's Vampires, are pretty cool? This film, Ironheart, manages to be NEITHER of those. I don't know what the filmmakers were thinking, but it looks as if this movie was made with no time to shoot, no budget for anything, and no script to speak of. (While I'm on the script note, I should point out that Bolo Yeung has NO LINES in this movie - the only reason he gets first billing on the box is the fact that he's the only actor in the film that you'll ever recognize (unless you're a Jackie Chan fan, in which case you'll recognize the bad guy - and you'll want to call him Giancarlo!).)

What's also sad is that this film is from '92. By that time, T2: Judgment day had come out, so you know that the era of 80s campiness was over... but not quite. After this, you'll think 80s Chuck Norris films, high-school comedies, and Jason/Freddy sequels were works of sheer genius.

Things to know:

1) Nobody in this film can act for beans. The closest you get is Richard Norton looking appropriately rich and cocky, and Bolo Yeung looking appropriately mean ... and cocky. Everything else is dreadful.

2) The martial arts scenes are forgettable - just many instances of white guys with lots of muscles taking off their shirts, yelling, running at Britton Lee, getting kicked by Britton Lee, getting punched by Britton Lee, then falling down. Even the final showdown against Bolo is disappointingly short, and about as creative as the design of my running socks (and equally stinky).

3) The rest of the action is pathetic, too: the guns look like they came from the toy department at K-Mart, and indeed they fire with the sound of a capgun. When someone gets shot, they bounce around a little bit, then lie still with splotches of brownish-red liquid on their clothes. Britton Lee apparently gets shot in the side, but you don't see it at all, then later that day you see the wound ... I've had paper cuts that were worse than that!

4) Of course then the girl dresses the wound, then they kiss, then next thing you know they're lying in bed talking after sex. Huh? What? Believable development of the love interest, as well as any kind of character development at all, are overlooked completely in this film. Remember how Bruce Lee's characters didn't need to have sex with anybody to be cool?

5) The car chase is by far the worst I've ever seen. It looks like the director was sitting on the curb with a hand-held camera as the two cars weaved down the road doing, oh I don't know, about 30 miles an hour? Don't try this at home, kids, these people are professionals! Hah!

6) Really bad writing. Here's a scene for you: Lee is being followed, so the girl follows the followers to "warn" Lee, but her car is too slow. So by the time she catches up, Lee and the bad guys are out of their cars and there's a gunfight in progress. Lee has killed two bad guys, but the third is shooting at Lee when the girl almost runs Lee over, so the bad guy runs away. (Huh?) Then the girl's car stalls and she can't start it. She tells Lee she's involved now and she's coming with him. He points out to her that they can't leave her car there because the bad guys will trace it to her. She somehow convinces him that he should decide how to deal with this problem - so he shoots the gas tank and blows up her car. (And remember, later that same night they have sex.) Huh?!?

7) If you look closely, in more than half of the nightclub shots, the dancers are very much out of sync with the music. The dancers are also all way too co-ordinated with each other (apparently in the '80s all people at dance clubs took dancing lessons). There is a girl in the DJ booth with a microphone, but she never does anything except dance. The bouncers tell people who are fighting to "take it outside" - without moving their lips. In one scene, the only bouncers Lee and Stevo pass by are just inside the entrance, but with their backs to it! Also, apparently, if you're a major character in the film, you can go straight to the head of the line.

8) Lee notices the first time he is being followed, but he doesn't notice the second time - even though it's the same guy in the same car. The girl, however, notices. Bad guys get followed twice, but they never notice.

9) Lee is worried the bad guys will trace the girl's car back to her, even though they have already seen him show up where she works twice. The girl proceeds to leave her child at work, in the care of a friend, while she is off having sex with Lee. DO NOT learn parenting from this film!

Can't think of more gripes right now ... you get the idea ... Ironheart is so bad, it ain't even funny, it's SAD.


Me and a couple of friends went to rent some movies one day, we picked one each and one of us picked Ironheart. Lets just say that from now on, we never let him pick a movie. This movie sucks


My brother plays "Moose" in this film. Although most of his scenes were left on the cutting room floor. The funniest line is the movie is "nothing wong with stat." So anyway, this is filmed in Portland, OR, where we grew up. The dance club is/was called "Up Front FX". What I loved about this movie is that the main character (who is not named on the box because Bolo brings more clout) is supposed to be a police detective...a great opportunity to drive around in a red convertible Porsche. I need to get a copy of this, preferably the director's cut, so I can see all the scenes my brother is in. The only scene he is in is the beginning when they are in the dance club. He got the spot because he was dating this cheerleader from a semi-pro football team called The Oregon Thunderbolts. It is interesting because his name comes up as the first entry in IMDb. Fame has him, fortune, not so much.


This really is the worst movie I have ever seen. For a while, I made a habit of watching lousy movies, including "Battlefield Earth", "Delta Force Commando" and "Starship". All of these movies are cinematic gems compared to Ironheart.

There isn't much point in summarizing this piece of junk; I think it's more beneficial to summarize my reaction to the movie, which is as follows: I become furiously angry and I want to rip the tape out of the VCR and burn it after (roughly) 80 minutes of play.

I rate this movie a 0, but IMDb does not let one rate a movie less than 1. I give it a 0 knowing full well that I am saying any movie that has any score above 0 is infinitely (undefinably) many times better than this one - That's really how bad it is.