This film was actually shot and made in 1987 but it didn't hit the theaters until 1990. As I watched this film I could see the good intentions that it had but I'm afraid there wasn't much talent or experience behind the camera to make it work. Story takes place in California in the 1890's and some Italian immigrants who own vineyards are told they have to leave their land so a railroad can come through. Dennis Hopper plays William Berrigan who has offered money for the land but has been turned down. Giancarlo Giannini is Sebastian Collogero and he is to proud to leave and asks the other farmers to stand up and fight to keep their land. Berrigan grows impatient and hires a bunch of thugs to force everyone to vacate. These thugs are headed by a man named Andrews (Burt Young) and he doesn't hesitate to kill anyone who gives him problems. Andrews and his men kill Collogero one night and his son Marco (Eric Roberts) vows to seek revenge and get the land back for everyone. Marco blows up the bridge that the railroad was going to need and they also destroy a tunnel and this sets back the project for several months and Berrigan now starts to get heat from other investors. This film was directed by Peter Masterson and besides "The Trip To Bountiful" he has at best a spotty career in directing. He's a fine actor but here he seems to be in over his head. This was a film that desperately needed more attention to detail and its easy to see that it didn't occur. Roberts hairstyle is perfect for the 1980's but this is suppose to be 1890! The cinematographer is Toyomichi Kurita who ended up being a good cameraman but this was only his fourth film and he certainly had not learned everything at that time. Its not a sharp looking film at all and I noticed in several shots during the day that the sun would be glaring off of something and the scenes just don't have the crispness that would have helped the overall look. The script is just a revenge story and no surprises take place during the course of the film. We know Giannini is going to get it and it seemed just a matter of time. The cast is top notch and they do their best but the whole film comes across as uninspired. This was promoted as Julia Roberts film debut but I'm not sure that is correct. She might have appeared in a film called "Firehouse" before this.


Well now, here's the thing - for this movie to work, you'll have to accept the following - a woman who's murdered is alive again at the end of the movie, a detective stops interrogating the dead woman's fiancée because a newspaper reporter asked him not to, and that same reporter, smitten by a good looking blonde hauled into night court for suspicious behavior, winds up getting married to her in exchange for the judge letting her off the hook. Are you following me on this? I can't tell you how many times I paused and rewound the picture to repeat scenes that just didn't make any sense. In the end, the blonde (Claudia Dell) and the reporter (Richard Hemingway) remained married, but I have no idea how they came to that decision. In fact, I can't figure out how the film maker came to the decision to make this flick. Oh I suppose there's some entertainment value here for just the sheer nonsense of it all, but it would have been nice if even a couple of the pieces fit. Still, I'm not ready to add this one to my Top Ten Worst list. I think that night club scene with the feathered ladies might have saved it. But why was it in the movie? I just don't know.


Only in the Hollywood audiovisual fiction world could anybody, including FBI agents, be so unbelievably stupid. The good guys are stupid enough to pick up everything they're interested in, answer phones, go up stairways, all in search for a demolition expert who's out to get everybody. Oh yes, and then we get the Hollywood SUPERVILLAIN. He can be shot, even if he's got a vest on, and then fall down a long flight of steps and then still have the upper hand over his stupid pursuers. Every cliché you can think of in suspense movies were used. I only watched it because Yuki Amami is so HOT. Oh,,,,but yes, it's great to see how morally superior this FBI agent is, when she's pretty certain that there's a bomb in an Opera House, and she doesn't sound the alarm. Who writes these scripts????????????


I am still trying to figure out what the target of this movie was: 1) Whether to show how stupid, disorganized, unprofessional and arrogant the police is (I surely could add various adjectives here, but I think my point on this is clear). 2) Whether to show how a twisted-minded crook that does not know what he wants from himself can create chaos. 3) Whether to show if a persistent detective will solve a case just by asking the criminal the same stupid question over and over again till the criminal answers? 4) Or was it just to show that any 90 minutes of filmed material can still be called a MOVIE

This was one of those movies, that in a way - did not disappoint me. From the first 10 minutes I kind of figured out that this movie will not be nominated for the best movie award, and surprisingly enough  this was consistent throughout the whole time. It was stupid enough to be worth the wait to see how stupidly it will continue and end  and I was not disappointed there either.

Was it a complete waist of time? YES. Which raises your question  WHY DID I WATCH IT THROUGHOUT? Well, I was trying to fall asleep, and I thought this was a great candidate for that, but unfortunately I had too much coffee before that


I speak badly of G.I.J.:T.M. mostly because I think it lacked something that G.I. Joe had. Yes It had something that G.I. Joe didn't have like celebrity cameos by Don Johnson, and Burgess Meredith but I think G.I. Joe: The Movie lacked the passion for the characters that the G.I. Joe TV series had. Most of the voice over artists really sounded like they were dead pan and they were going to die at anytime now. It's a good movie but I wouldn't say that it was the greatest movie in the world I.M.H.O. :)

Although violence is what G.I. Joe was built on I'd say that Serpentor striking Duke in his chest wasn't the very best way for Charlie Adler's character to go out. Neither was seeing Golobulus remind Cobra Commander why he was chosen to lead the Cobra forces and then being horribly mutated after he failed to deliver what Cobra-La felt was rightfully theirs.

It wasn't the best way for the G.I. Joe series to go out but it's better than nothing. :)


For me, it just didn't seem like GI Joe at all. When I watched it as a kid, I just didn't care for it. In fact the part I liked best about this one was the opening credits. They change so many facts around and turn the story around as well. Cobra Commander is supposedly part of this stupid race of reptile people in Antarctica or somewhere that is frozen. Though I always thought he was a normal guy considering every time you saw his eyes in the series they were surrounded by normal colored flesh and not the blue his face was here. There is just too much crap in this one to try and make this a spectacular movie, but for me it just ruins what I watched the series for in the first place.


Absolutely nothing is redeeming about this total piece of trash, and the only thing worse than seeing this film is seeing it in English class. This is literally one of the worst films I have ever seen. It totally ignores and contradicts any themes it may present, so the story is just really really dull. Thank god the 80's are over, and god save whatever man was actually born as "James Bond III".


This movie is so bad there are not words to describe it. If I got a video camera of a monkey dancing for an hour and a half it would be a heck of a lot more entertaining than this. The plot is so dull and unimaginitive it is not even worth mentioning. The best part of the movie was when the credits roled and I got a chuckle out of knowing the lead actors name was James Bond III. Just trust me and stay far away from this trash heap!


I've watched a lot of TV through the years. So much, that when I start seeing new shows that basically seem like reruns of old shows, I get insulted. Luckily, I am not too sensitive because all "Hot Properties" does is updates the cast (meaning make them sexier)of "Designing Women" and drops them in New York City instead of Georgia.

The jokes are more TV-14-ish, but it does not make the show any better. The only thing that this show has proved is that Nicole Sullivan is SO good that she could have made a show like "My Mother the Car" a classic. Her comic talents remind one of a modern day Lucille Ball--only funnier. Unfortunately, the rest of the cast is flashy and sexy which might be good for some brainless soap, but they just aren't funny.

Fred


The Foreigner is a straight-to-video Steven Seagal film that was originally intended to be released as a theatrical feature in March, 2003, an intention which was reportedly reversed when Seagal's prior film (Half Past Dead) tanked at the box office. According to some reports, the film had a lavish $20 million budget, including location shoots in Warsaw and Paris, and was completed as part of the studio's obligation to a two-picture deal which was negotiated after the relative success of Exit Wounds seemed to indicate that Seagal still had a solid following.

Despite the size of their investment, Sony Screen Gems probably made the right move in shelving this movie. It is nearly incomprehensible. What am I saying? It IS incomprehensible. I don't think I understood what was going on at all, except in the very broadest terms.

Seagal is employed by a mysterious guy to deliver a mysterious package to another mysterious guy. Other mysterious guys try to stop him. Other highly mysterious guys try to kill the moderately mysterious guys who try to stop him. Other really, really mysterious guys do especially mysterious stuff, all of which which was in fact too mysterious for me to figure out. The intended recipient's mysterious wife tries to intercept the package before it can be delivered to her husband. Because he is a self-proclaimed "consummate professional" who has been hired to deliver the package only into the hands of the husband, Seagal at first defies the wife, then later gets involved in protecting her and her daughter from other mysterious guys with unexplained agendas, as well as from her husband.

Many people have mysterious, cryptic conversations. Many people blow each other's brains out. Some guys seem to die more than once, while in other scenes gunfights end without a clear view of the result, so the audience sees somebody die, but is not sure which one of the gunslingers is headed to boot hill. Allegiances shift often, adding further mystery. Or should I say confusion?

I don't know who was on whose side, or what anybody really wanted, and the resolution was as unsatisfying as the exposition. At the end of the movie, I just sat there thinking, "That's the end? What the ...?"

I couldn't even figure out the credits. IMDb says that Aussie actress Kate Fischer (from "Sirens") was in this film, but I'll be damned if I know where. Either she was left on the cutting room floor or she wisely opted out of the project. She could have found some activities more beneficial to her career, like having unnecessary surgery, ripping those pesky insert cards out of magazines, or taking some community college courses in animal husbandry.

Seagal used to be a pretty fair hand-to-hand combatant, but the action scenes didn't manage to redeem this film at all. Seagal is in his 50's now and is a very large man, so he is reduced to a mimimal level of physical exertion and even during that he is contained in a knee-length coat to hide his inchoate Brandoesque girth. He might even get a little winded removing the wrappers from candy bars, although that's understandable if you estimate just how many of those he must have to eat to maintain his present girth.

Steven Seagal seemed to be making a comeback with Exit Wounds, but if his last film was half past dead, this one must be pretty close to filling out the other half.


When you watch a Seagal movie, you expect good action. You expect fighting, not just a lot of shooting like in this flick. And: you expect a rather simple story. OK, I can live with a more complex story even though it's a Seagal movie. But this one, this is, I don't know what to say. It's very, very confusing indeed. At the end of the movie, I had major problems figuring out what had happened. And I know I'm not the only one. The story lacks so much information and is so full of plot holes that it's nearly impossible to keep track of what's happening in the movie. There are many people in the movie, people change sides all the time, and it switches locations too often. Terrible. I just don't understand why it looks like Seagal is making a sort of sequel to this one.


This has got to be THE worst Steven Segal movie I have ever watched (even worse than eco-piffle like On Deadly Ground & Fire Down Below). I'll start with the good points..., It's got stylish direction for a DTV movie and has wonderful scenry... That's it! The story dosen't really go anywhere, it's just an array of well staged set pieces just so seagal go shoot bad guys (the body count can easily match Tarantino at his bloodiest!). The plot is needlessly complicated and confusing you forget who the good and bad guys are. The acting (I use the term loosely) is mediocre at best, seagal's usual ONE constipated expression and wooden acting I can take but the others especially the Brits were down right terrible.

What's in the package? Why are bad guys after it? Is seagal being set up?

WHO GIVES A S***!

When I rented this movie at my local Blockbuster (Once i'd paid) the assistant laughed at me and said it was the worst movie in the shop I could have picked! (I felt like punching him till my arm went numb)

Anyway, I haven't seen Half Past Dead or Out for a kill yet and i daren't go back for more humiliation at my store, but they can't be anyworse than this turkey

The soundtrack is supposed to be young and hip - It just gave me a suuden urge for half a dozen asprins.

All in all this is Seagal at his WORST! The guy who's gained about 100Ibs and looks well past it, he's a guy who just doesn't no when to stop, he should retire gracefully NOW! and have a go behind the camera or become a Martial arts teacher or something.

My rating 2/10 (1 point for scenery)


Im hoping this was made before Half Past Dead and Exit Wounds because it was rubbish, Seagal wasnt to blame it was down to the crap directing when the few action scenes took place. The plot was also confusing and basically just felt rushed out, maybe it was shelved and released to capitalise on Seagals newer films??

3/10

He's not through yet, bring on Under Siege 3 and loose some weight!


I saw that "The Foreigner" was ranked in the "Bottom 100" movie listings here on IMDb, so I wasn't expecting much when I tuned into it on the USA channel a week back, but I did have hopes. "Belly Of The Beast" (which aired a month ago) was a mess, but it had great scenery and photography and some pretty cool moments scattered throughout, so I thought that this movie might have some of the same.

Alas, this movie fails the standards of basic watch-ability in almost every way. The screenplay comes off as the bastard offspring of a John LeCarre novel and a Richard Ludlum movie, but done by people with none of those worthy writers' talent for plot and characterization. Instead what we got is a glum, mean-spirited, nihilistic, cryptic mare's nest of muddled motives, tangled alliances and back-shootings. And chest shootings. And bombings. And eviscerations. This carries over to the directorial style, which relies on hackneyed 'grainy shot/slow motion' shots every 10 seconds, along with wire work and hyperactive jump cuts. These filmic devices that were stale 10 years ago when MTV directors used them for Whitesnake videos, and the director works them like a punch press, hoping to inject some weird art-house techno thriller coolness into the proceedings.

Segal himself is just awful in this. He spends the entire film talking in a hoarse, throaty half-whisper and alternating between two expressions: looking like he is sucking on a lemon while someone waves a small turd under his nose, or looking constipated. And he's so chunky (and vain about it) that he never actually takes off his knee length duster on camera. I understand that it's hard to keep the girth under control as a male actor ages (although Denzel Washington and Paul Newman never seemed to have that problem). But you deal with it by being honest about it, and by growing as an actor, not by hiding it with carefully chosen camera angles and floor length robes.

So I can't really tell what's going on, and the movie doesn't give me a reason to care about what's going on, and the protagonist is completely one dimensional and visually unappealing. Not a recipe for a good movie experience.

Oddly, most of the set designs and scenery are atmospheric and striking; in fact, if you were to freeze the film on almost any given scene that wasn't a close-up of Seagal, you would be struck by the care and professionalism of the lighting,colors, and composition and by how beautiful the Eastern European settings are. But dressing up a rotten egg as a Faberge egg can't make it edible. And the proceedings are rotten at heart.

There are 'cool' movies (like "Versus"), and there are visually striking but emotionally cold movies (like "Underworld") and there are paranoia conspiracy thrillers (like "The Bourne Identity" and its remake with Matt Damon). And then there is this thing, which can't make up its mind what it wants to be, pretends to be all these things, and fails because it has no guts or soul.

This is a movie made by professionals with an actual budget, so you can't really put it in the same class as "Manos", "Killer Shrews" or "Hobgoblins". But I'd rather watch all three of those movies back-to-back several times than watch "The Foreigner" again even once.


If I could have given this film 0/10 I would, and this is the first film I have wanted to rate so low. Its worse than awful. If I went to see it in the cinema I would want the cinema to pay ME for watching it (at least minimum wage). Some of the camera shots were quite effective, but a lot were rubbish eg. villains reflection in a mirror that separates his head and shoulders side-ways from his body (seeing is believing). Several totally pointless killings of innocent civilians. 2 murders that made me laugh out loud due to the victims actions/facial expressions when they were shot. I only watched it to the end (fast forwarding about 10 mins of the boring pointless dialogue) hoping to see Seagal in some decent hand to hand combat, but there was almost none of that (should have known that when at the beginning he threw someone while going down an elevator and it was shown in slow motion with music - end of 'action' scene). In one scene we see Seagal hand chop someones neck in slow motion which makes it obvious that his hand never even made contact). The chief villain keeps coming back to life. He gets shot in the chest on 2 separate occasions. The 1st time its with a shotgun which blows him out the 2nd/3rd floor onto the street. To sum up, this film is a total waste of time and a total joke. It looks very low budget (even for Seagal). The colour is dull and grey. I could go on and on....just like this film, but I wont. Watch this film if you've got insomnia. Its guaranteed to put you to sleep.


Since I'm from Norway (one of the top ten (or so) richest countries in the world), it was much fun to watch how we use trucks from the 50ies and live in cottages from the medieval times. And since we have very strict laws when it comes to handguns, it was fun to see how much guns there actually were in Norway during the five minutes of the shooting there. Mr. Direct-to-video even managed to bring his silencer on short notice, so he must have powerful friends in the customs.

Please do at least _some_ research before going to an "exotic" country, dudes -- you may hurt the feelings of old fans.

Sverre -- old fan with hurt feelings.


They actually make a big deal out of a scene in which Steven hurdles a 3 foot fence. The plot is...barely there, the acting (so to speak) is distressing and the action is catastrophically lame. This is the worst Seagal film ever, and that is saying something.


Can they possibly get any worse than this? Probably. But after all Steven Seagal gets to do what he does. Well kind of; this time instead of mortally wounding the bad guys he just wounds them. By reputation of being a bad ass agent Seagal is hired to deliver a special package from France to America. But it is not an easy task with so many people trying to intercept and foul up the mission. The fights just don't have enough bite and the big bangs are just big and that's all. Anna-Louis Plowman seems to be the only cast member not to appear wooden. Also in the cast are: Jeffery Pierce, Max Ryan and Harry Van Gorkum. Don't put all the blame on Seagal for this clunker.


I like Steven Seagal but I have not a CLUE what this movie was about. I am not easily lost with movies but I had no idea who was on who's side.

Hopefully some of his future movies will be a little better. My wife still thinks he looks good in black jeans, however. :P


I have to say that I really liked UNDER SIEGE and HARD TO KILL.

watching Seagal doing his funny martial arts on people. I have

been always looking forward to Seagal-Movies and, unfortunately, I was first disappointed by GLIMMER MAN, which I found really bad. THE FOREIGNER is probably one of the worst Seagal has ever

acted in. Horribly boring, badly edited, wrongest soundtrack and so on! Dear reader, do yourself a favor an stay away from this!

Honestly: Stay away!


Steven Seagal's films of late have not exactly been good, but this is by far the worst since The Patriot. The plot makes no sense what so ever; it is never clear in what the relationships between the characters are, who works for who or who is double crossing who. The film is completely disjointed, each scene seems to confuse the story further rather than carry it forward. Even the action sequences are uninspired and hard to follow. Most of the blame must lie at the director's feet for not even understanding the basics of film making, but Seagal does not get off lightly, as one of the producers of this film, he must also share the blame. Oh, and I haven't even mentioned how awful the acting is, even by Seagal standards. Even as straight to video fodder, this is not worth a view even for Seagal fans. Give it a wide berth!


Imagine this...

Whenever two people meet in this movie, one of them is shot. The plot just does not exist - it appears that someone shot some action sequences and then tried to put them together to make a movie out of it. If you decide to watch it, you will regret it.


First: I like S Segal! But in this movie, he has hit rock bottom and started to dig!

THE PLOT What plot? Very strange and unbeliveable plot.

THE ACTIONS WAY below Segals standards!

THE GOOD PARTS Mr Segal is a pro. And shows it. That's it.

SUMMARY I could write (and have done so) a better script for Mr Segal. In case you read this Stephen, mail me, I'll give you a better script to do a better movie! The only realistic part is the one where... (see spoiler part).

SPOILER PART (stop reading here if you plan to see the movie!) - - - Gas leak? Wow. Disecting a 'Black-box'-recorder in a hotel room? I work in the industry, laughable! The bad guy 'get's away', that much is true in life!


One of the worst movies I have ever seen. Seagal has been acting in several entertaining action movies, but this time this movie really sucks. Just stupid killing and really stupid storyline. In addition, Seagul looks fat and old.


Bad acting? Yes, but it was not a surprise. Stupid story? Yes, so what?

But why, tell me, Mr Director, why all that slow motion crap? Fight scenes were bad, really bad, because of slow motion and bad cutting. Not because of Seagal.

"What if I just speed this up for 2 seconds and then slow down those next 5 seconds and then... Maybe I need to flip the coin to decide?" What were you thinking, Mr Director???


I usually really enjoy Steven Seagal movies. They are usually highly entertaining and being somewhat of an adept of Aikido, I usually like the way Steven incorporates these martial art techniques in the fight sequences.

However this film is a really bad movie making effort and it seems obvious to me that the blame lies with the director and the producers who obviously have no idea how to make an action movie, let alone direct someone like Steven Seagal and to take advantage of his knowledge and competence.

I never saw the end of this movie. I walked out before the end simply because I couldn't stand watching anymore of this bad movie. I am sure that many people also share my feelings.


I am a fan of his ... This movie sucked really bad. Even worse than Ticker! & That movie was bad. It was kind of like they popped it out in a week. Looked to be very low budget. Only like 3 or 4 buildings used, a couple of locations MAYBE, & poor hummh! Everything! It just blew.


Seagal needs to get back to basics breaking bones and kicking butt. No more of this slow motion crap like foreigner and in the shadows fighting like half past dead. Exit wounds showed more of his fighting skills with some wires which was ok but then he went back to b movie directors.


There are films that are not released in theaters but on video. This one should be allowed to age and disintegrate the way old nitrate film stock does. No story, inept violence, over acted, badly written and the sorry thing is that the star was not the only bad part in the film. And I did like and enjoyed some of Siegel's other movies.


Three words: What a pile..... Two words: Don't bother! One word: Sucked! There are zero reasons to see this movie. Even those Seagal groupies should shy away from this movie. The martial arts, the typical Aikido, are horrible. The martial arts moves themselves are fine but the cinematography is pathetic. The movie actually goes into slow motion whenever Seagal give his "kill move" to his victims. Worse yet, is shows the same move three times in rapid succession from three slightly different angles. How stupid. Seagal's acting was plain stupid, but I still give this movie a "6" for acting because of the supporting cast whose "villain" roles were actually quite entertaining.

The plot is just dumb. Seagal plays a Federal Express agent with a license to kill. His character also has that dedicated work ethic which means all of his packages get delivered to the correct people on time - at no extra charge - and nothing stands in his way. Not assassins, political leaders, explosions, or even death.

I expect a certain level of violence in a martial arts film, but there are several scenes in this movie of random and horrible acts of violence that lend itself in no way to the advancement of the movie or its story. There is a reason this movie went directly to video and there are tons of reasons to avoid it. No one should bother with this tripe.


this movie simply does not work. The action scenes were shot to look stylish but just come out looking sloppy. seagal barely fights and a lot of his scenes are shot from the back ( if you look in some of the scenes it is not even him, but a 100 lb lighter stunt double) the movie is just all around BAD!


Lord have mercy! Why was this film made? Why did Seagal and rising star Max Ryan agree to be in it? The Foreigner is so excruciatingly bad in every conceivable way that it boggles the mind.

The film has an ultra-cheap look to it. Like a budget of a couple of bucks was far out of their reach. What's worse is that the makers know this and try to make it look slick to compensate. The result is a film that just don't look right. The fight scenes are so dull and edited 'discretely' to hide the fact that Steven Seagal is not in good shape anymore. None of them are engaging or exciting. The plot is nonsense that doesn't interest in the slightest way or have any uniqueness to it. The Eastern-Europe locations (a sly move by the producers to keep the budget down, or non-existent) look unpleasant and should not be serving as the backdrop for an 'action' film (what action?).

And what is the deal with the title? As far as I could tell everyone in the movie was foreign. Which ONE does the title refer to?

The DVD is in 1.85:1 anamorphic widescreen and in Dolby 5.1 sound. Neither are remarkable enough to warrant even a single rent. The Foreigner is not worth one second of your time. Gotta love that tagline tho! 'If they think they can stop him, they're dead wrong.' Sheesh!


I think this movie was made backwards, first they shoot a whole lot of scenes and action, and explosions, and then the story-writers got to work trying to find a story to tie all scenes up together. this movie is without any doubt the worst movie I have ever seen, your average porn movie comes with a much better written and much more coherent script. The movie makes NO sense. Seriously, even IF you are a Segal fan there's no reason you should EVER want to see this movie, except if you're one of those folks that like to stare at accidents, because this is a horrible accident, and should never have been released upon this world.

Boran.


Mr Seagal has apparantly lowered his (already low) standards even more and has now outdone himself in making bad movies. The Foreigner has no substance what so ever in the script. It's director has made an even worse job and the music and score is so cheezy and malplaced that you just don't know whether to laugh or cry. Already 10 minutes into the movie, you just want to turn it off. However, considering Steven Seagal's past movies, you think 'Hey, there might be some cool action-sequences at least worth watching...' ...you are WRONG! It only gets worse as the movie progresses. Everyone (with a few exceptions) seem to kill every person that they talk to, good or bad, innocent or not. The only good thing with the movie is that it that it has an end and that it has a rather short running time. Summing the movie up in two words: STAY AWAY!


Sigh... what can I say?

Why does a horrible script such as this gets approved in the first place. Its not wrong to have a complicated plot but its not explained to the audience properly!

To have the wife explain the plot via flashbacks is bad bad bad. To have such a tight editing for the fight scenes is bad too! Such fanciful editing only appears in trailers. It cheapens the whole look!

And who are the Russian guys at the top of the movie? Who is the guy being tortured? Is he with the CIA?

This film deserved not to be released in theatre. But it doesn't deserve to be produced in the first place. Its a joke to Hollywood.


"The Foreigner" is a tale of foreign intrigue with Seagal at the center as a deep cover operative who has a package which everyone wants and are willing to kill to get. The flick is uninspired with less of the usual action stuff which put Seagal on the movie map (fire fights, hand-to-hand combat, pyrotechnics, stunts, etc.) and more of a story which is convoluted, uninteresting, and full of meaningless filler. What action there is seems token and gratuitous while Seagal, looking more and more like a pork chop, meanders through this insipid flick expressionless and bored while manifesting no improvement in acting ability. Somewhere around "The Glimmer Man" or "Fire Down Below" Seagal flicks took a nose dive and "The Foreigner" is just an continuation of that trend. Nothing here worth watching except for the most die-hard Seagal fans. (C-)


I believe Cockpuncher to be the best piece of work that has come out of the Steven Seagal factory in a long time. This movie was the first one I have seen since that fine film preview. My point? He is done. Every movie is the same. Maybe he will be good in Machete because he won't be the star. We can only hope.

P.S. Thanks for speaking to UCSB when I went to college. It was an amazing speech. You really influenced some people out there.

So I have to write ten lines about this movie? Umm....I like the smoker guy who killed a bunch of fools. Whenever anyone smells menthol's LOOK OUT. Because there could be a killer with a silenced glock (and another loud one) who wants to kill you.

Is that ten?


Why on earth does five US keep repeating this one? the title actually says it all: the plot is as clear as a book read in a language you never heard of and that resembles to nothing.

You'll see ninety minutes of changing locations, most of them will be blown up later on in the movie. Right in the beginning you see a nice little farm typical for the Berry, which is in the movie moved close to Paris but then it does not survive the "transport" to the Isle de France very well: it explodes 1 minute later. there are also two gangster who have no tongues, as if that would make sense in the world of SMS and internet, let alone pencil and paper.

It just goes on like that, nothing makes sense in this story. my only credit goes to the cameraman, the camera is excellent.


Two things are changed from then.First of all i am not a kid anymore,and second most of new Seagal movies are just terrible.This is on my opinion the worst movie ever made with Derailed starred by Jean Claude Van Damme.There is no plot in this movie,the plot is just an excuse to shoot some terrible action scenes which are painful to watch.I love action movies,but this is not an action movie....This isn't a movie...this is a group of irritating scenes which are connected in annoying way to kill the viewers love for the action movies.I am sorry but i don't have any respect for anyone who liked this movie.He has a serious intelligence problem then.I hope that Seagal will make some new good movies in the future.Good luck for him !


The authors know nothing about Russians prisons, the movie is absolutely cockamamie, has nothing common with the reality. They also don't that the foreign prisoners in Russia have a special prison so the foreigners NEVER live together with Russian criminals. The uniforms in this movie look if they were stolen somewhere in Latin America. Prisoners in Russia also don't work outside the prison. Each kill in Russian prison is a subject of investigation so the prisoners kill each other only if there some very important reasons. Playing soccer is also forbidden in the prisons, contacts between the prisoners are very restricted, no chance for bloody combats etc etc etc. So this movie has Nothing common with the reality.


To call a film boring is not something I would usually count as a valid criticism. However, when a film is crassly made of spare parts from other films that weren't that good to begin with, and it is slow as molasses with no real payoff, I think it's fair to call a spade a spade. And The Ghost is a very boring film.

A movie that is about as original as its' name, The Ghost tells the story of a young girl with amnesia being haunted by a ghost that holds the secret to her past. Only, it's a whole lot more complicated and less interesting than one would think.

The plot line is almost incomprehensible for most of the picture and the hook, the amnesia element, only makes things worse. It seems that no one, including the screenwriter and director have any clue what the hell is happening at any given moment. Instead they chose to do what roughly amounts to the filmic equivalent of a sitcom clip show. There are scenes taken directly from Ringu, Dark Water, Shutter, The Grudge series, and a smattering of Pulse for good measure. Making matters worse, the half dozen female leads all dress and read their lines alike, making them impossible to tell apart.

There is just nothing to grasp onto with this film. The story isn't all that well thought out. The amnesia gimmick is lazy. The mystery element is un-involving and handled with little grace. The characters never deduce anything, all the information is just handed out through the lead remembering her past whenever it is convenient for the plot.

The cinematography, full of reflections and shots of water at least attempts to add to the subtext, a thematic link with the amnesia and the final twist (which I won't reveal) is nice, but often overwrought. Even the score feels borrowed and cliché.

Worst of all, the inciting action for the curse isn't very interesting and the final twist is predictable and lame. "Wait, you mean that one character who has 15 minutes of screen time but appeared to have nothing to do with the plot comes back in the end? No!" Audiences are too savvy for this kind of tripe. Anyone who has seen any of the films that this rips off will find very little to even keep them awake with this feature. I used to think Shimizu was the bottom of the barrel for this kind of crap (remaking his grudge film no less than 5 times) but even his second rate work like Reincarnation, a film I couldn't even bring my self to finish, is miles ahead of this.

For more reviews please visit www.collider.com


This movie starts out with this creepy song that gave me some chills like the song used in "Nightmare on Elmstreet"! It immediately sets the mood! The sequence that follows also shows what to expect! We are made aware that a ghost is present! The mystery concerning this ghost is what keeps this movie together! But the structure of the plot is so complex that it is difficult to make sense of it! The ideas behind the plot are quite interesting! Only the way it is told to us is far too abstract! I understand that the director believed that he had to maintain the mystery as long as possible! The problem is that when certain matters get revealed you never get a satisfying explanation! The motives of the important characters are left out and some questions raised in the movie don't get answered at all! Since we don't learn enough about the characters it becomes hard to care for them! And as a consequence you will loose interest! Only some scares and a twist save this movie from becoming a total failure! The twist is interesting but no real shocker! The experienced viewer will see it coming! Some reviewers complain that this movie is too much like "Ringu" and is not original at all! Well it is true that some of the effects and scares are borrowed from that movie! But there is a main difference! The suspense in "Ringu" mainly was based on this one twist where the viewer finds out how the characters get killed!! In "Ryeong" (the "Ringu" like) twist is used as a creepy effect to accompany another crazy twist! "Ryeong" heavily depends on a complex structured plot and twist that doesn't contain enough scares to hold your interest! Simply put: This isn't a scary movie!


Simply put, I was amazingly disappointed. I'm a huge fan of Asian Horror, and I can watch unoriginality (I myself enjoyed "The Red Shoes" and "Phone"), but this was just poor.

The movie has a lot of elements that are very high-quality: the photography is eye-catching, the visuals are cool, the directing is inspired, the acting is pretty good, the music is easy on the ears, and the CGI is incredible. But, since this is a horror film, we are expected to be scared, which just won't happen with this film. As with most South Korean horrors, this is unoriginal almost from beginning to end: there's the trademark long-haired vengeful female ghost, ominous clumps of thick, black hair and puddles of water, and near the end, a twist that *almost*, but not quite makes sense out of the whole thing (the twist is easily one of the best qualities). And to the viewer's irritation, when the film isn't recycling (at times, so exact that it could easily be dubbed plagiarized) imagery from other movies, it's making you jump. A lot. And by jumps, I don't mean things jumping out or anything, just VERY loud noises and screeches in the soundtrack used to make the audience jump six feet in the air (there's even a few "made-you-jump" moments that are simply infuriating). And when it is not ripping-off other movies, it's boring, and hard to sit through.

And it's a shame, because "Ryeong" could have easily been really good, and it has everything to make it good, but its the annoying overuse of completely predictable loud noises and jump scares that eventually ruin the movie. A perfect example of how good it could have been: there's a moment when one of out characters is looking at a corpse, and without a sound, the corpse looks back. It's wholly predictable, but the use of silence in that scene is brilliant. And unfortunately, that's as scary as the movie got for me.

Admittedly, "Ryeong" has a few good features, and even a couple jumps that aren't as predictable, and do work. There's a very good and sad back-story used to explain the events, and the twist is pretty unpredictable. Those are the only things that separate the film from any other Asian ghost/horror film. But the problem with these is, even though they do work, they have been used before (J-Horror fans will easily realize the big reveal was inspired by "A Tale of Two Sisters"), and it takes the back-story a good fifty minutes to get going.

So in the end, "Ryong" really seems like a truly wasted opportunity. Tae-kyeong Kim hoped that the plot twist and other good features act as diversions, so the audience won't notice the huge flaws. But he failed, and well... We noticed everything.

My rating: 4/10.


CORRIDORS OF BLOOD

Aspect ratio: 1.66:1

Sound format: Mono

(Black and white)

London, 1840: Whilst attempting to formulate an anaesthetic solution, a dedicated surgeon (Boris Karloff) becomes addicted to narcotics and is blackmailed by local bodysnatchers.

Riding the coat-tails of a Gothic revival occasioned by the recent success of Hammer's THE CURSE OF FRANKENSTEIN (1957), Robert Day's CORRIDORS OF BLOOD is an odd mixture of historical drama and Grand Guignol theatrics. Producer Richard Gordon lured Karloff away from Hollywood - where his movie career had become stalled in a B-movie rut (VOODOO ISLAND, FRANKENSTEIN 1970, etc.) - for a couple of lurid shockers in which good men are thwarted by circumstances beyond their control. In GRIP OF THE STRANGLER (1958), he played a novelist who stumbles onto a horrific secret whilst researching a series of murders from recent history, while in CORRIDORS OF BLOOD, he's a drug-addicted surgeon who falls prey to a gang of criminals masterminded by East End pub landlord Francis de Wolff. Less a horror film than a melodrama with ghoulish trimmings, the movie hedges its commercial bets by including a number of gory thrills (a leg sliced open, a face destroyed by acid, etc.), but the narrative is motivated chiefly by Karloff's altruistic pursuit of an anaesthetic formula that will alleviate the terrible suffering of patients during surgery.

Produced under the title 'The Doctor from Seven Dials', the finished movie went unreleased until 1962 due to indifference by distributors MGM, by which time co-star Christopher Lee had earned a prominent screen credit, despite playing a small - but significant - role as 'Resurrection Joe', a sinister Cockney thug who murders carefully selected patrons of de Wolff's squalid pub and sells the remains to local doctors. Lee filmed this glorified cameo before THE CURSE OF FRANKENSTEIN catapulted him to international stardom, which accounts for his limited screen time, though his intense performance is one of the film's highlights. Adrienne Corri (VAMPIRE CIRCUS) distinguishes herself as de Wolff's partner in crime, and there's a feast of familiar faces in supporting roles, including Francis Matthews (DRACULA: PRINCE OF DARKNESS), Betta St. John (THE CITY OF THE DEAD), Finlay Currie and Nigel Green. Superb art direction (by Anthony Masters) and cinematography (Geoffrey Faithful).


Notwithstanding that "The House of Adam" is meant to be a mainstream gay movie; that Anthony (John Shaw), who is gay curious and a major cutie-hunk and Adam (Jared Cadwell) who is openly gay, and a close second in looks; that there is a whole minute of wonderful, convincing, and naked lovemaking (sorry, no frontal) between Anthony and Adam 41 minutes into the movie (that alone may be sufficient for many of us) --- notwithstanding all that (to which I give a thumbs up), "The House of Adam" is a horrible movie by most any other movie making standard. A big thumbs down.

Shaw's and Cadwell's acting abilities are either sophomoric or else truly suffer from the bad script, direction, and editing, or rather the lack thereof. Their lovemaking scene is nevertheless convincing, and may have more to do with their really being into each other, considering the rest of their scripting and acting.

Writer-director Jorge Amer's (Bonus Feature) self-congratulation as to his movie making skills is off the wall.

So, the script and lack thereof is a thumbs down. Overall, the acting is thumbs down with just the slightest exception for Shaw and Cadwell. Alexis Karriker as Nina might have been the best except for the limitations expressed above. Far and away the absolute worst, and insufferable, acting was by Thomas Michael Kappier as Albert Ross, Anthony's father having not even of elementary school acting quality. He truly represents a colossal casting failure.

The actors playing the new cabin owners are worthy of truly bad acting nominations as well.

If only the production, editing and post production were as good as the trailer, this movie would have been quite something else. The trailer presents well put together clips of scenes that drew me into renting the movie in the first place. That, and the hope that this gay-centered movie, was supposedly prominently played and touted at gay film festivals.

Overall, the movie is a big thumbs down.

Is it worth buying/renting and watching it? Only if you have an irresistible yen to see the naked love making scene, and a few minutes of semi-convincing dialogue between Anthony and Adam. Or if you truly just enjoy watching bad movies.


First and foremost I am a gay man, although do not live my life within the so called "Community", and it's because of films like this that Gay themed movies are not my favorite genre because 90% of them are crap. Like this one. f I could give this a zero I would. (I do not understand all the positive comments, unless they were all made by people who made this film) I actually stopped this at the 24 minute mark when the so called straight "Anthony" kissed Adam outside the restaurant for NO reason at all. And how is the son stealing from the diner if he doesn't even live in the town? Wire transfers? The acting was HORRENDOUS! The sound editing? (Listen to "Anthony" and Adam when they are sitting on the fence eating their lunch. Every time the camera switched between the two so called actors the sound changes, like there was not a filter on the microphone)Seriously do not rent, or god forbid, buy this movie.Horrible Horrible Horrible acting and just a stupid storyline.


Hi guys, this is my first review and I would had to have picked the worst movie to review. As I only watched 5 minutes of it but trust me you could see this movie was going nowhere. The acting was deplorable, the camera work and lighting looked as though it was shot and run by a pack of 10 year old's. No offence to 10 year olds.I just couldn't take anymore I got off my couch, took the The House of Adam DVD out of the DVD player and threw it in the garbage. Maybe if you are a Colin Farrell fan this movie may interest you, because the character in the movie, Anthony, is a Colin Farrell look a like. But that is as far as it goes, he certainly will never have col's acting abilities. I gave this movie a rating of 1 (awful) only because there were no minuses in the drop down list cheers.


I'm assuming the filmmakers heart was in the right place but, frankly, this movie is truly unconscionable. I was offended by the tone and the total cop out ending. You cannot take issues like this so lightly! Without knowing the final caveat of the movie... we watch as a guy guns down his 9 month pregnant wife and two sons and are supposed to follow him for the next 2+ hours as he tries to establish a new life?? You cannot have sympathy for a character who does this. Cannot! Not to mention, we're given nothing until the last say 1/2 hour of this unnecessarily long movie, as to why this guy is suffering so much. No flashbacks, no sudden reactions to noise or movement - stuff that real vets are suffering from. All we know is he has a pain in the ass wife and can't financially take care of her and his 3 kids. There really didn't seem to be any research whatsoever into what current Iraq vets are going through.

Additionally, the movie suffers tremendously from a heavy handed and totally inappropriate score. Its a catastrophe. It is truly harmful to some actually good acting on the part of the male lead and at times Joe Morton. It foreshadows EVERYTHING you're supposed to feel, and sometimes gives you the wrong clues entirely! Again, this was a brutal thing this guy did, and so seeing him get a new job, meet a new blonde, struggle behind the counter making toast is NOT appropriate! And really, the ending? What a freakin cop out! How dare you.

There are far richer films dealing with the affects of war on returning soldiers, please don't bother with this one.


Last night, I attended a screening of Badland with my cousin. We were kind of excited to learn once we got there that the director/writer, the producer (his wife), and several cast members were also in attendance and that there would be a discussion and Q&A after the movie. But once the movie was over and the credits started rolling (and the film really was not edited well enough and is too long), my cousin and I, without consulting each other, immediately got up and left. We found out once we started talking outside that we were both feeling so angry that not only did we not want to stay for the discussion, we couldn't even look at the cast and crew who had been standing near the exit and who we walked right by as we left.

I have figured out that the roots of my anger were planted during the scene in which Jerry slices his daughter Celina's palm with a big knife so that her blood could be used to leave a fake trail. It was unavoidable to connect in my mind the physical pain he inflicted on her body with the emotional pain he inflicted on her spirit by murdering her mother and two brothers in her presence, sparing her, and taking her with him when he fled. I've sliced my palm before (accidentally); even a fairly superficial cut is incredibly painful because the palm is so sensitive, and it is very slow to heal if you don't keep it immobile because you just keep opening it up trying to go about your life. But after a very short time with only a narrow strip of cloth tied clumsily around her palm and one scene with a big band-aid, it was as if she'd never been cut. My anger reached its peak--I won't spoil this moment for you--in Celina's final scene.

I got angry because Celina is by far the most sympathetic character in the film (the actress portraying her is a good one); I wasand you can't tell me a good screenwriter wouldn't know thisimmersed in feeling both her physical and emotional pain; and the screenwriter, by treating Celina's emotional pain so cavalierly and with such disrespect, also treated me, the audience member, cavalierly and with utter disrespect.

Sure, the script has moments of tears for Celina, and some dialogue that tells us she's hurting, somewhere, somehow. But by this time, we the audience are feeling so manipulated that we've shut down. The manipulation starts very early on in this movie, when Jerry's family's dialogue spells out for the audience that Jerry had psychiatric problems. Rule one, screenwriters: give your audience some credit. Let them do a good bit of the creative work on their own. Tell the story; don't explain to us everything we're supposed to think and feel. We don't like it.

My cousin also knew she was having trouble with the movie early on, dialogue-wise, when Jerry and his wife had little to say to each other besides f*** this, f*** that, f*** you. Some couples do indeed find themselves in relationships so bad that the f-bomb ends up being every other word out of their mouths. But it's like watching comedians who curse a lot. Some of them are really funny; the cursing is ancillary. But some of them substitute cursing for humor, and this screenwriter, to carry the metaphor to its conclusion, is no Chris Rock.

This husband and wife team bravely chose to tackle an awfully complex story with awfully complex characters. But they seem not to have realized that the meaning of a story, especially a complex one, will vary for each member of the audience. Successful storytelling requires paying attention to important factual details, not working desperately to interpret the meaning of the story for the whole audience.

I worked with Vietnam veterans for five years, I've heard more stories than most, and I'm always happy to see films released that bring their stories to a broader audience. It's important, on all kinds of different levels, that we hear them. But I am less than thrilled that this storyteller decided before the film even began what Jerry's story meant and proceeded to spell it out for us with a very heavy hand. Next time, pay more attention to the details.


Badland is one of the worst movies I ever seen. Most of the time this is fine and I can go on with my life, but I feel the need to warn others in this case. As a veteran of the Iraq war I feel it necessary to say that the story, plot, acting and depiction of what soldiers go through upon returning home was pure garbage. It was as if the director/writer/whoever latched on to whatever cliché about returning soldiers and ran with it and ran with it and ran with it..Not to mention I would imagine there was absolutely no research put into this film. The "Marine" uniform looked like it was fresh off a surplus store shelf and was a pattern not used since the first Iraq war. I won't go on forever, this is a horrible movie. If you are interested in the stories of returning soldiers there are much better alternatives. I recommend going to your local library.


Being an American service member please believe me when I say that this movie in no way accurately portrays the emotional state of our Soldiers/Sailors/Airmen/Marines returning from deployments.

That being said....

This movie is one large steaming pile of cliché. The acting as awful (with the exception of the little girl) the character's backgrounds are weak and laughable, and plot is ludicrous.

This movie is so bad I made an account with IMDb just to warn anyone with half a brain away from it.

Canadian writer/director Francesco Lucente should be really, really, really ashamed of this movie. If he disagrees with US foreign policy, he should write a letter to the US government, not punish the entire English speaking world with a monumentally crap film.


If anyone thinks this is a great sports movie it is probably the only sports movie they have ever seen. There are different aspects a sports movie can take. Whether it be professional or college or high school. Examples of sports movies I liked (and I haven't seen many) are Jim Thorpe: All American, All the Right Moves, Any Given Sunday, Eight Men Out, and Rocky, among others. All of those movies had a little more than just plain sports. Whether it was a mans ascent and then descent from greatness, or a man losing out on a dream by the actions of a vindictive coach, or the effect of money on professional sports. In Hoosiers, there is not much content. It didn't even seem as though the movie had a beginning or an end. There was no character development, all of them were forced on us. I could sum up this movie, by quoting a very bad coach: "Go out and try to score more points than the other guy."


A coach who used to be good, but has had to move to a new area to get away from what he once did; a team of no hopers; the star player who has a row with the coach; the assistant coach with an alcohol problem, the little guy who gets kicked around scoring the winning basket; the whole town against the coach (all except for the leading lady). It's the old story - right out of the British comic books, where a team of speccy geeks and fatties take on the Brazilians at soccer and win.

This film, admittedly well put together, is full of these clichés. The only part I didn't predict was when at the town meeting, the star player suddenly decided to side with the coach. No reason was ever given. It seemed like a very strange thing to do seeing that everything was going his way hitherto. Maybe he just felt sorry for the poor guy.

Gene Hackman plays a locker room Popey Doyle. I am sure that an actor of Dennis Hopper's calibre found nothing particularly challenging about his role. The same can be said about Barbara Hershey.

All in all, a film full of clichés that might have been done a lot better than it was.


A poor basketball movie. A gruff coach with a dubious background comes to a small Indiana high school basketball team in the 1950's and coaches the boys to victory by "breaking them down first, and then building them up."

Not a bad subject. Photography OK. But the plot is totally predictable. No real sub-plots. Nothing added to make the movie exciting. You know what is going to happen from the very beginning. Suitable for 4th Graders.


I tuned into this movie not because I am a fan of U.S. High School basketball (in fact I only rarely watch NBA games) but rather because I am a fan of Gene Hackman, who usually manages to bring an impressive depth to his performances. In this case, however, I was sorely disappointed. This was not one of the bright shining stars of Hackman's career.

In fairness to him, he didn't have a lot to work with. As Norman Dale, the new coach of a small town high school basketball team in Indiana, he wasn't called on to do much acting. Basically his performance consisted of pacing up and down basketball sidelines ranting at the referees. I didn't find him particularly believable in the role to be honest. I also was unimpressed with the requisite romance between Dale and Myra Fleener (Barbara Hershey). Quite honestly there was absolutely no chemistry between Hackman and Hershey. The romance never captured my attention, and neither did the basketball "action," which was altogether too predictable.

There were far too many problems with this movie to make it worthwhile. I never did understand the depth of the sheer hatred that so many of the townsfolk had for Dale, almost from before the time he arrived. The character development was poor and the story itself was poorly developed. Too much basketball and not enough human interaction, in my opinion. How many shots of kids shooting baskets do we need to see to get the point that this is a basketball movie? There was no suspense: is it even possible to doubt that Hickory is going to win the big one? I realize that this is based on a true story, but I guess it proves that not every true story should be a movie. Quite frankly, it just wasn't a very interesting movie. Definitely a movie Gene Hackman would like to forget.

No better than a 2/10 in my opinion.


This show is perhaps one of the most boring, most unfunny shows I've ever seen. While the humour was subtle, and I'm all for the subtle humour; the jokes just weren't funny.

The show is about two Kiwis in their mid-thirties living in New York trying to start their music careers.

I saw the one episode where Brett leaves the other Kiwi behind during a mugging. Okay, the plot idea has potential; but I got the feeling that half the episode was just filler, and the other half was actually important to the story.

What I mean is, they kept on explaining how the one who was left behind felt betrayed and had a lot of mistrust for the other guy. I've got one piece of advice for the writers: mention it once for the idiots who can't figure it out by the way he's acting, and move on.

And I found the characters were annoying. The character who left the other behind, Brett, came across as being overly innocent and naive, the one left behind walked around talking in this monotone and robotic voice.

A third character, who was the band manager, was obviously incompetent, but he was the one character that I liked. He's also the one that earned the show a one-star rating.

All in all, a show I have no intention of ever watching again.


From all the rave reviews, we couldn't wait to see this show. We love wacky humor and creative material, especially from Australia and New Zealand.

I admit this may not be a fair review since we only saw the first 15 minutes. But we just couldn't bear any more misery - it was definitely the most boring and painful 15 minutes we've ever experienced watching a TV show - it felt like 15 hours. The songs may be (mildly) interesting by themselves, but inserted for an interminable 3 minutes each in the middle of a story scene just doesn't work.

We're trying hard now to erase the memory. If you want some wonderful down-under humor in a delightful and engaging film, see "The Dish" instead.


The strawberry blond has a great script, But I just wish Errol Flynn was in it instead of James Cagney, he's not the person for the part. I do think Olivia did a great job. This movie is also a day dream wrap around, so it's hard to follow. I don't like the male character attitude; the way Cagney presented it was just off. I give it a 3 for poor acting by main male character. ( If you like tough ruff men that like to fight all the time and argue then this is your movie). The Strawberry blond would have been better if the main character had more of a positve attitude, and change the script so he is happy he's with Oliva.

THis movie points out Money does not bring happiness, women right jokes. Plain and simple not the best movie, but every one must decide for themselves.


Stars: Hayden Pantierre.

There have been so many movies that have this exact same plot, and this one is just a poor rehashing of it. Populer white girl moves to ethnic school, doesn't fit in, soon becomes accepted. Originality is nonexistent in this, and neither are the laughs. It uses so many old poorly executed jokes it's annoying. I don't know why they think it's a good idea to make made for video sequels to mediocre films, but it isn't. With that said, the positives in this are that all the people in it are fairly competent actors and actresses.

My rating: * out of ****. PG-13 for Language and Sexual Humor.


The first two Bring It On movies were both quite good in their own ways. The first was fairly serious, the second was successfully satirical - and the third opted for the usual idiotic low-brow comedy that we always see in the utterly brainless teen movies that Hollywood has coming out of the woodwork. The entire point in this movie was that cheerleaders are total airheads who hardly know enough to carry on a common conversation, and that's the extent of this movie's comedy. Ha ha. Not.

There is no shred of cleverness in this movie, no theme, no subtext, nothing for anybody with half a brain to be entertained by (and sure enough, I could not sit through all of it). If you're the sort of person who're entertained by fart jokes, this movie is for you. Congratulations.

2 out of 10.


This was terrible, mean-spirited, and full of the worst clichés and racial stereotypes I've seen in a looong time. Seeing Hayden P trying to act "ghetto" was painful (hi, one pant leg up on yer sweats and some braids Downs't make you "down with the homies"). Solange Knowles pretty much grimaces through the entire movie. Most of the set sequences look like they were filmed in cardboard boxes...what was up with the finale??? And poor Rihanna was just plain exploited to get people to watch her "act", which she can't.

Put simply, this film Downs't even deserve one star. Please put this tired franchise to rest. Or at least make the next one Bring It On IV: Cheerleaders vs. Freddy & Jason.


without a doubt, one of the most racially prejudiced films i've ever seen, with the prejudice being levelled against Hayden Panettiere as she has to move into a tough inner city school. She is constantly called "white girl" and other slurs based on her colour. Firstly would this be allowed the other way around if a black girl was the butt of all the abuse? and secondly the stereotyping of the ethnic kids from the inner city school is also a disgrace. The writers apparent desire to show they were "hip" also extended to missing the point that the inner city school win the cheerleading competition, not through talent but by intimidating their white opponents!! these overtones to the film took it away from it's expected direction of a harmless lighthearted comedy suitable for a family audience into a vehicle that does none of the participants any credit. Hayden Panettiere has star quality but I would be surprised if any of the rest of the class ever get much further. All in all a charmless film that was a waste of time.


Seriously, I couldn't find anything that constituted a rational human thought in this movie. For some reason, the writer decided to have a bunch of actors in random places grunting, groveling and yelling like Cro-Magnon bipeds. I understand that this was about gymnastics, but seriously, what's with all the roaring and human bleating ? I also saw at least five actors with overactive terrets syndrome and stage 10 syphilis.

Although this movie has actual human acrobatics, I must say it is surprising that you can make a movie like this without having any intelligible form of human speech patterns. This is truly a milestone in the history of film-making because there was no conscious decision to make the characters express anything more than a timely Urrrrr ! or Rfff ! sound.

Incredible.


There was a lot of hype of this movie and the commercials made it seem like it would be great. Sadly, like Bring It On 2, Bring It On 3 shamed glory of the original Bring It On. There is shameless stereotyping throughout the film. The lines given to the actors were humiliating for all the races involved in the film. The performance of Hayden Panattiere was sub-par both in terms of acting and cheerleading. There were several scenes in which I literally cringed because I was embarrassed for the cast because the scene (lines, plot, etc) were just so stupid. My recommendation to the makers of any future Bring It On films is that you should hire good cheerleaders and teach them to act because the "acting" of the cast was horrendous and their lack of cheerleading ability made them completely useless to the film. Only great character: Kirresha.


What a nasty cynical film. Apparently this sad excuse for a dramatic urban look at what 20 year olds do whilst crawling through the gutter of Sydney nightlife is supposed to be somehow connecting with its target market. Made by some Industry nobody and pals who seemingly thought they could cobble together any sleazy behavior with a young cast and pour it into multiplexes, SAMPLE PEOPLE deservedly failed miserably at the Australian box office. It is so offensive in its clichéd depictions of obvious and easy targets it was fully rejected by the very audience it was intended. Shoddy and cruel and with no attempt to offer quality or resonance to the young audience who might have been attracted by the marketing or casting SAMPLE PEOPLE might have been interesting or even informative if not botched by its exploitive view of 'what teens want to see in a movie'. The character played by Ben Mendelsohn is particularly offensive and Kylie Minogue is again wasted by poor material and untalented film makers. It is as if the producers thought teens would watch any ugly trash and just slung-together scenes and characters who were shallow and soul less. Well the were very wrong. A mini budget film made in 1983 called GOING DOWN got this topic right and is an excellent antidote to this poison.


First: The recent campaigning of this movie is a huge hoax. Judging from the cover you'd think this was some kind of scandal movie about Kylie playing a character having sex, taking drugs and whatever. This is just a cheap market-scheme. She's barely in it and does neither of the things. The marketing here is unbelievable, and I'm surprised the filmmakers hasn't objected.

The movie itself was to me a huge disappointment. It seemed like a Sunset Beach episode directed sloppy-handed by a teenage Quentin Tarantino. And thats not meant as a compliment, mind you.

I think the weakness of the movie first of all is the story. It seems to be about nothing. Just about cool teenagers tripping around living 'on the edge'. The characters themselves does have some personality though, but the movie doesn't use its potential. As said, there's no story of any substance here. It seems to elaborate too much on cool dialog and ends up looking like a colorful MTV ad. It definitely has that feeling.

Still though, I guess some people might enjoy it, but I'd say there's far better movies like this around.


Missed it at the cinema, but was always slightly compelled. Found it in the throw-out bin at my local video shop for a measly two bucks! Will I now give it away to anyone who wants it? Probably! No purposeful plot, one dimensional characters, plastic world ripped off from many far better films, no decent dialogue to speak of. You know that empty feeling when you come down off ecstasy? Its that feeling right here. Sad thing is, the Australia I know is heading in this direction, minus the melodrama and simple answers. Interesting only to see the older Aussie actors (who had to ACT back in their day to get by) vs the newer Aussie actors (who have to LOOK GOOD to get by). Like some horribly garish narrative introduction to a film clip that never actually starts... Poor Kylie, started her career as an actress as well...


This was a first feature for Clinton, I was there, while he shot this mess back in Adelaide around 98...

Although I wasn't involved directly in the production, I was witness to the typically delusional behavior, post set, that went down,: the parties, the drugs, the illusionary glamor, really an example of what not to do when making a film, but also a byproduct of young, talented people getting caught up in classic ideologies of fame & worldly position.

I like Clinton, we had a curious friendship, he deserves to have another crack with a more mature script...there the problems lay, and I'm sure a much better job will be done, if there's a next time round.! Because, frankly, he certainly didn't do himself any favours with this on his CV and neither did the cast...but hey, it was a paying job, in country where actors regularly starve to death

In summary, fascinating to watch 'the making of' basically, not so much fun to experience (alas!).


I got interested in this movie because somebody had made a beautiful video for Björks "Bachelorette" with clips from it. So I watched the movie. And it is indeed stuningly beautiful. A masterpiece of animation.

Unfortunately, the story doesn't keep up. It starts out well, with interesting plotlines about people fencing for the possession of the Rose Bride, but suddenly elevators fill up with water and looses their walls, people float away, and finally for no reason whatsoever, Utena is tranformed into a car, and a highspeed chase ensues.

I like much Anime for it's ability to make alternative universes, but this universe is just stupid. If you are gonna watch this movie, turn of the sound, it's better that way.


STAR RATING: ***** Saturday Night **** Friday Night *** Friday Morning ** Sunday Night * Monday Morning

As a boy, Mark Goddard (C Thomas Howell) sat powerless as his family, including his hero cop father (Jeff Fahey), were brutally murdered by vicious criminals he'd tried to bring down. With an inner desire to punish wrong-doers festering in him as he grew up as a result of this, Mark employs tough means when bringing the suspects he's chasing down in and gets into a lot of trouble with his superiors because of this. But then he learns of 'Justice Incorporated', a secret group of men and women lead by a mysterious man (Ed Lauter) who serve to dish out punishment that fits the crime outside the law.But, then things get out of hand and getting out alive might be harder than he thought.

The Sweeper gets into problems from the off-set, because we've seen this exact same plot done before (and better) in films like The Star Chamber with Michael Douglas and Magnum Force with Clint Eastwood. The title doesn't make any sense either. But we also have to contend with the movie's utter ludicrousness, including a scene where a daughter's headphone manages to drown out the sound of her family being slaughtered, a finale involving a chase with a bad guy that starts on the freeway and ends on a Wright Brothers plane, as well as some of the most ridiculous acting ever put on screen and a very clichéd, pretentious script. But there's some cool action sequences here and there and the movie's unintentional laughs factor certainly keeps it alive with a pulse. **


Ordinarily, I wouldn't waste the time on reviewing a film like "Human Pork Chop" (the 2001 version, not to be confused with the earlier film of the same title, which is probably better known in the West as "The Untold Story"), but since the reviews already here are quite vague as to what it actually consists of, I figured I'd best post something more detailed, so as no one actually gets tempted (as I was) into buying it because of the film's mystique. I honestly would just say STAY AWAY.

**** MAJOR SPOILERS are contained below ****

"Human Pork Chop", I was expecting to be like a Chinese interpretation of the popular Japanese "Guinea Pig" films. Anyone who's watched enough of that series can see where its makers are coming from. There's a strong sense of humour running throughout it - you can't watch the ludicrous "He Never Dies" without laughing and "The Making of Guinea Pig" is a fabulous turning of the whole thing on its head, proving it was just made, with some glee, by fairly good natured gorehounds. All the GP films have a punk rock, DIY, shot-on-video aesthetic, occasional flashes of genuine artistry ("Mermaid in a Manhole"), an angry political agenda and a warped, deranged zeal that sets them in a league of their own.

"Human Pork Chop" has none of the above.

It's shot on 35mm film (with disarmingly good production values), it's 90 gruelling minutes long and it's utterly devoid of anything redeeming. The plot tells, in flashback at a police interviewing of the suspects, of the systematic torture, death and eventual dismemberment of Grace, a heroin-addicted streetwalker who is kidnapped and brutalised by her pimp and his henchmen when she steals money from him.

Despite its fleeting attempts at being a morality play, the film possesses a detached, inhumane feel to it and one can't help but dwell on the mindsets of those behind it. Although it half-heartedly paints Grace as an innocent victim, the mean-spirited nature of its screenplay and the protagonist's constant, vicious dialogue veers towards a shocking, utterly unwelcome "she deserves it!" point of view which makes the whole thing almost impossible to watch. Far more time is spent detailing Grace's degradation and when her captors are eventually deemed guilty and jailed, it seems like a hurried afterthought on behalf of the writers who've long since stopped caring less.

What makes it boggling as to why anyone would want to watch such a film is that even the kind of people who do REALLY get off on mindless sex and violence in the movies would be severely missing out. The torture is just a continuous stream of kickings, slappings, verbal abuse, psychological abuse and then increasingly bizarre displays of power on behalf of the captors use Grace's heroin addiction to make her do their bidding. And when I say that, don't get me wrong, incidentally. Unlike "Guinea Pig" with it's frequent barrage of nudity that gives an almost teenage feel of mock-titillation to the proceedings in spite of the ultraviolence, "Human Pork Chop" has no such sexual overtones. There isn't any actual nudity in the film and the violence is performed purely out of malice by the odious protagonists (who early in the film are seen stuffing a dog into a bag and banging it against a brick wall - don't worry, not real, just a cheap special effect!).

The only actual bloodshed in the film is towards the end when they dismember Grace's body and boil the bones, all very poor special FX (nowhere near "Guinea Pig" level) and, by that stage, you'll probably be already feeling too miserable and sick to even care what's going on.

The film is depressingly bleak and uncompromising along a similar line to Buddy Giovinazzo's "Combat Shock" and I guess could even be compared, at a push. Both movies deal with the gradual physical decline of an individual who exists in a nightmarish environment devoid of any social or morally redeemable characters and both movies 'climax' in a particularly visceral manner with the individual's inevitable, inescapable doom.

In fairness, neither 'glamourises' it's violence (whereas "Guinea Pig" could easily be accused of this) but one can't help but wonder where the place is for a film like this. It fails to many any real points in its frank presentation of such brutality and with a leaden-pace, a virtually non-existent plot line and the aforementioned lack of any entertainment value, I just can't understand what would encourage anyone to watch something like this. I only made it to the end, purely for the purpose of being able to review it fairly... which I hope I've now done.

Overall Score: 0 of of 10. Welcome to the bottom of the barrel.


After consuming "Human Pork Chop" and properly digesting it, I felt urged and obliged to inform potential viewers, that chewing on this product is NO FUN and its substance of LOW nutritive value.

According to the dull nature of this film, the following is gonna be a WARNING more than a REVIEW. This is the first time I wished, that there is an "I-don't-care-to-rate-this-movie"-button on IMDB, because the only reaction to this boring piece of TRASH is stasis and indifference. Every possible rating would do injustice to all the other items listed here, a "10" is out of question anyway, "1" might persuade some readers, that this is one of those cases where "it's so bad that it's actually REALLY bad and that's kewl!", and "5" is unsatisfying as well, people might think, that it's an OK-flick and alright if you wanna have some cheesy fun, which it is not... Honest to God, it's neither a "10", a zero nor a 5, it's nothing, a black hole, A FUTILE WORK CONCEIVED BY AN EMBRYO. I bought the region 3 DVD, which was cheap (7 bucks!!!) at least and of good picture-quality, I bought it mainly because of the positive and promising reviews posted below my own entry. Oh boy, was I to be DISAPPOINTED. This movie is neither shocking nor disgusting nor unnerving nor... it's not even laughable, it doesn't take itself too serious to be laughed at, but still serious enough so as not to be comic. A truly unpassionate, amateurish effort. The only sequence that I found MILDLY DISTURBING is when two giggling thugs put an ugly dog in a bag and bash it against a brick wall... but even such a cruel premise only lead to a poor execution. The further down cited TOILET SCENE is unrealistic and filmmed without any sense for suspense, suffering or humiliation - the feces look like painted marsh-mellows!!! There is a butchery scene at the end of a loooong 85-minutes where three men dressed in plastic raincoats (a setup which one finds also depicted on the front cover of the DVD) start to dispose of the female body. Reminded me of "American Psycho" and "Shallow Grave", now these flicks are worth watching and true masterpieces.

Let's be REALISTIC for once and not rush to make a myth out of every Asian-wannabe-scary-movie, as seems to happen lately...

If you are looking out for some eastern horror then try Danny Lee's masterpiece of the very same (English) title "Ba Xian fan dian zhi ren rou cha shao bao" (Human Pork Chop) it's from 1992 and has - not without reason I might add - been compared to "Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer". There is also a similar film telling the same story by a different film crew called "Ren tou dou fu shang" ("There Is a Secret in My Soup") of the same year, sort of a rival production. It's available as a region 3 DVD and by most regarded as superior to "Peng shi zhi sang jin tian liang". I might add a few more words on the special effects... what special effects?!?... there are a few chopped off limbs, they look awful - in a wrong sense - probably "Made in Hong Kong".

That's about all the info I can share on this subject, hopefully it will prove helpful... ENJOY YOUR MEAL!


Unlike what one reviewer said this is NOT a ripoff of Magnum Force. In that one Lieutenant Hal Holbrook put together his own little squad from Academy rookies to dispatch repeat offenders. In Extreme Justice this operation has the sanction from the higher ups of the LAPD. Just how far they sanction the exact methods used is open to question.

This Special Investigations Squad seems to be quite the haven for the misfits of the LAPD, those that have forgotten their first duty is protection and service. Which is why Scott Glenn thinks Lou Diamond Phillips, a detective with more than his share of beefs with Internal Affairs for excessive use of force, is perfect for the squad.

What should have sent him running from Phillips is the fact he's got a nice live-in relationship with a reporter, Chelsea Field. That one certainly threw me in this film, you'd think that Lou would be the last guy he'd try to recruit for his team.

And what his team is, is a death squad. They target perpetrators follow them and wait to catch them in the act. Then it's open season.

Extreme Justice went very overboard in trying to make a point. There sure would have been no harm in waiting for a gang of bank robbers to finish the robbery and taking them down outside. No civilians got hurt when the citizens of Coffeyville did that to the Daltons. Or waiting until three rapists finish the job before moving in. That's what were asked to believe here.

And frankly I couldn't buy it. A lot of good players get really wasted in this one.


Jeff Powers (Lou Diamond Phillips, "Young Guns 1&2"), a cop with a history of roughing up criminals, is recruited into an elite clandestine LAPD division. This doesn't sit well with Jeff's newspaper reporter girlfriend, Kelly (Chelsea Field) who's looking for a story on the squad. Soon enough Jeff's conscience gets the better of him which puts him at odds with Dan Vaughn (Scott Glenn, "the Hunt for Red October" & "Backdraft"), the leader of the unit.

This is a fairly routine, dare I say mundane, cop-action/drama that holds no surprises thanks to a cookie-cutter plot that's content to go strictly from point A to point B. The acting is all right for what the actors were given to work with however that's no real reason to watch the film. Kinda sad seeing as the six previous Mark L. Lester directed films right before this one (from Class of 1984 to Showdown in Little Tokyo) were all highly entertaining vehicles.

Eye Candy: Chelsea Field gets briefly topless

My Grade: D+


Okay, so maybe the acting wasn't bad, but I am typing this review as a public service to prevent anyone else who happens upon the intriguing beginning of this telefilm from throwing away two hours of their life waiting for some plot development that will never come. The chief investigator has a gut feeling who did away with the missing marine officer (Guy), and few people other than uninvolved bystanders and the accusee seem to dispute her. So what is the point of staying with this drama? Beats the heck out of me. I kept thinking (or hoping) there would be some sort of plot twist or new revelation, but none was forthcoming. In summary, I cannot think of a single reason to sit and watch this pointless TV movie, based on a true story or not.


Czech cinematography is traveling through dark times... this movie is a tangible evidence. Slama obviously wanted to make a mediocre documentary about fictive people, characteristic of their stupidity. A young and healthy boy who doesn't want to work and prefer to live in a decaying shack with a feckless alcoholic aunt. Because of the idiocy of Tonik, who's just able to announce "Dad, I'll not work in the factory" (I'd really like to know WHY); I understand the condition of his "house", but I'm really not able to digest the horrible mess around. Cramped sentimentality everywhere. Why didn't Monika escort her boy to work abroad? Young Czech couples do it very often. And take someone else's children to live in a devastated barn... that's too much.

Irresponsible mother (badly acted by Geislerová), naive & stupid boy (Tonik), silly and confused girl (Monika)... Yes, somebody has already told it - badly directed and acted soap opera. Actors like Martin Huba, Bolek Polivka, Tatiana Wilhelmova and Simona Stasova did their best, but unfortunately it couldn't save the whole piece.


Well acted, yes. Very well, I must say, even though I don't speak Chezck. Nice cinematography. But the script is lame, really lame. A predictable soap opera, in which you know exactly everything that is going to happen. OK, maybe the ending isn't as predictable, but is it any good? It is one of those films that you have the feeling that have seen already, and forget about the day after.

I just got a note from IMDb saying that my comment was not long enough. That's really sad, because I have no idea of what else to say about this movie, which actually says a a lot about it, don't you think? The thing is.. .It has no soul and no originality. Compare this movie with Barrio, or Riff Raff, shot more than ten years ago (or the extraordinary recently shot The Child). It's sad to see that this is a much worse film.


Norman Wisdom's final starring vehicle was a departure from his previous outings  bringing his accident-prone milquetoast up-to-date, this being a product of the Swinging Sixties! The end result is an uneasy and occasionally embarrassing comedy which mixes the star's typical slapstick (and sentimentality) with mild sexuality and even milder satire; the plot has to do with an executive on a trip for a banking conference falling for teenager Sally Geeson (who doesn't mind getting involved with him but doesn't take their relationship all that seriously either); Sarah Atkinson appears as Geeson's friend who warns Norman of her fickle character.

The film is nowhere near as bad as Leonard Maltin's BOMB rating would have it and, if anything, is interesting for its treatment of mid-life crisis (being in many ways similar to Hoffman [1970] and 10 [1979]  both of which, incidentally, I've only just watched); towards the end, Norman even tries to bring his wife round to his new way of thinking! The Pretty Things appear as themselves performing a number of good tunes in a nightclub and Norm himself sings the catchy title track!


As I write this, Norman Wisdom is a very confused old man who spends most of his waking hours cackling and yelping old catch-phrases at his increasingly suicidal nurse.

Indeed, by the time you read this he will probably have joined the hereafter and the obituaries will record a near 80 year career of hysterical mirth-making from the lovable funster with the crooked chequered cap. What most of these obituaries won't recall is how Norman Wisdom had already committed a form of suicide back in the late 1960s with this staggeringly poor, yet strangely compelling endpaper to his movie career.

The signs are ominous from the off  "Tony Tenser Presents" go the titles. You scratch your head  "Where have I seen that name before..?" Well, on the titles of a lot of the cheapest, crappiest British films of the 1970s so just take your pick.

Then it says  "A Menahem Golan Production". Oh dear.

From what I could make out what follows is a combination of Confessions from a Holiday Camp and Last Tango in Paris. Sponsored by the Southport Tourist Board.

Norman Wisdom is very versatile at being Norman Wisdom (or a variation of such) here. Even in trash like this, he's never off form and somehow keeps you watching through parted fingers as he paws and dribbles all over a (clearly insane) Sally Geeson. Tony Tenser and Menahem Golan were, between them, responsible for some true cinematic horrors but the bedroom scene in filmic atrocity reborn. Sally plays the role of a lobotomised sex toy very well, by the way.

I wonder if any of the crazy young cats who populate this movie's party scenes maybe thought to themselves in a quiet moment "Ummold Norman+sex+hippies. Get me outta this mess!!" I guess it was a payday for them.

A do feel sorry for The Pretty Things though. They probably thought "Yeah! This'll do for us what Blow Up did for the Yardbirds"

And so old Norman's leading man career ended. Freezing his little balls off in Southport.

I went there once. It was a depressing place.


It's a shame that someone so idolised by many kids as well as parents should demean himself in appearing in this exploitative, bandwagon-jumping tripe. I often wonder if Mr Wisdom in his later years looked back at his excuse for a film with any pride. At least Sally Geeson had the decency to retire to doing something worthwhile after appearing in this low budget rubbish. A cameo by some long forgotten pop called the Pretty Things cannot rescue the film from it's awfulness. If you want 60's nostalgia invest in 'Here We Go Round The Mulberry Bush' instead, starring Barry Evans and Sally's sister Judy instead.


I felt I had to add a comment after seeing the breathless gushing of the other comment. I was taken to see this film as a child by my unknowing parents, expecting a normal Norman Wisdom jolly romp comedy. Instead, what you get is this insipid British sex comedy of the worst kind where Norman (Norman!) plays a swinger aiming to get off with as many 'birds' as possible. Absolutely typical of the genre - poorly filmed and acted, no semblance of a script beyond the worst kind of double-entendre, and very vague hints of 'naughtiness'. And all seemingly on that special grainy film stock that is reserved for 1960's-1970's British low budget films. About the only memorable thing is the annoyingly catchy theme tune, which still pops up in my brain after 30-odd years.

Finally, in the last scene you also get to see Norman naked - running across the sand and looking frozen. I think so anyway- at that point my mother hauled me out of the cinema. I saw it again, many years later, and guess what, it was still dire.

If you're any fan or take any interest in the little man and his career, you'll apply the '10-foot-bargepole' rule to this. Believe me, you do not need to see Norman Wisdom's backside.


This film gives a look at the suffering a family experiences at the death of a child, and the healing that can finally come to them.

The family learns of the death of their son on Christmas Eve, 1991, ruining the Christmas season for them. They do not celebrate it again for many years. There is an interesting comment by the daughter that will remind viewers to consider the needs of surviving children in such a situation.

The Matthew character makes a reference to Jesus, but I suspect that other comments he makes come from non-Christian sources. I wonder if any other viewers would recognize those comments. If so, it would be an interesting addition to the data on this movie.


I bought the DVD of this movie because I am a fan of William Devane and I was really disappointed about "A Christmas Visitor". The story of the movie is so boring and slow in the development that you just want to turn off your TV or DVD player after about the half of it. The dialogues are really bad and belong to a daily soap opera but not in a TV movie. William Devane was alright in his part and he was acting quite good, but he did so much better in other movies and projects. Meredith Baxter was horrible and couldn't really bring the warm hearted mother to the viewers. Instead she was playing very cool and wasn't better than a middle-class actress. I absolutely cannot recommend this movie. Spare your time and your money for this one.


There are so many logical errors in this show it's barely worth me stating. 1) Mystic Gohan is non existent 2) Uub is as powerful as MAJIN BUU yet plays absolutely no role in the show, somehow he is easily overpowered by every bad guy 3) The whole Super Saiyan 4 idea is retarded and it's appalling that he loses to super 17 (which is the worst idea for a DB villain EVER) 4) Super Saiyan 4 Goku is no match for Super 17 but non transformed Goku using a move he learned in a movie that wasn't supposed to happen, kills him with ease 5) Vegeta is utterly useless 6) No character other than Goku has any impact to the outcome of the battles 7) The series ends with a spirit bomb...come on 8) Goku invincible? absorbs dragonballs? lame 9) Gotenks?...better yet Goten??? Trunks??? they both suck 10) Super Saiyan 4 involves a magical transformation into an adult 11) Goku is a kid 12) Goku is a kid 13) No super saiyan level 2 (characterized by electricity) 14) No imagination with the animation of Gogeta 15) Gogeta utterly useless 16) Big Bang Kamehameha is the biggest let down in anime history (not really logical but I'm going off on a tangent) 17) Shortest character fights ever

I could go on longer if I hadn't repressed the majority of memories associated with this show. When I make enough money I am going to fund the remaking of this series.


Eh it's not really as good as the other Dragonballs. The villains are actually rip-offs of other Z villains like Cell, Frieza, and even Majin Buu. With Baby being Frieza's clone, Super 17 being Cell's clone, and the Shadow Dragons being Buu's clone(s). The story is also very bad as it deals with Goku shrinking. SHRINKING!! It deals with him SHRINKING to like the size of an eight year old just to get it going. Let us not forget how weak the characters become. Gohan can't go mystic anymore and is even weaker than Pan.(It's sad I know). Speaking of Pan she was so cute at the end of Z now she's lost all that cuteness and become an irritating,whiny little girl whose sole purpose in this series is to get in the way. Goten doesn't even have a purpose in the series and Trunks... well I don't know what to say about Trunks. GT is just an attempt to milk the popular Dragonball franchise. If you really like Dragonball then avoid this series. It doesn't even feel like Dragonball. I will be fair though as the ending however was really good and is actually pretty sad (At least to me) and the theme songs both ending and opening are better (Japanese, not American). Might've been better if Toriyama san worked on it.


While traveling by train, a woman (Stéphane Excoffier) mistakenly gets out in a remote station when the train stops in the middle of the night. Sooner she finds that a weird lonely pointsman (Jim van der Woude) that does not speak her language is the only person in that area and that that was the last train in that track. The man lodges her in his house and they develop an unusual wordless relationship between them.

"De Wisselwachter" is an overrated boredom, with a different but uninteresting story that goes nowhere. I like movies Off-Hollywood, but this story is too absurd and has no message in the end. The sexual tension between the two lead characters is funny in a moment but too repetitive. I saw this movie in an old VHS and the image is too dark; I do not know whether on DVD the image would be of better quality. In the end, I was absolutely disappointed with this feature. My vote is three.

Title (Brazil): "O Homem da Linha" ("The Man of the Line")


I understand the draw and appeal to such a different type of movie and I am a huge admirer of movies with little dialog but all the same this one absolutely terrible. I've been to the Scottish highlands and found the lack of Scottish accents in the characters disappointing. This plot was strong enough in theory but the cheap sets and lack of a single realistic character kept this film from getting off the ground. I feel the use of silence to create atmosphere only works when you have actors who can exude some sort of presence without speaking and these actors certainly cant. If you want a silent movie that captures that presence try (Le Dernier Combat). There have been very few movies that I couldn't even manage to finish and this was one of them. Absolute dribble!


I watched "Gristle" primarily for the presence of Michael Dorn, as I enjoyed his Worf portrayal on Star Trek TNG, but had never seen him out of his makeup. Dorn appears to have a nice presence, and probably has the potential for a profitable acting career. This movie, however, gave him little dramatic challenge, except to prove that he can, indeed, use the "F" word.

It appears that this movie was made by someone who fancied himself as a forward-thinking type, with a social conscience. Yeah--- for 1965. Today, the themes are so belabored and sophomoric and cornball that even Spike Lee's dreadful "Bamboozled" looks good in comparison.

This crime-caper flick has an intricate labrynth of double-, triple-, and quadruple-crosses, but the plot scheme is so convoluted that it collapses upon itself within the first 30 minutes. Mostly, after that point, I simply watched out of momentum, and a mild curiosity about how each scene would play out. There is a great cast here-- you will recognize virtually everyone as a character actor from much better movies. Why are they all in this? I suspect it was 1) The work, and some money, even if modest. 2) Perhaps the director knows all these actors from acting classes and social connections around LA--- you know, perhaps they participated to support him, as a fellow struggling movie guy on the third and fourth tiers of the Hollywood scene. Dunno... but the movie was half-baked--- not really "finished." I gave it a 3, although my affection for the actors involved was undiminished from my admiration of their previous work. Let's hope everybody has moved on to more professional, more carefully done, and more thorough projects since.


Words can scarcely describe this movie. Loaded with ridiculous stereotypes, a silly plot, and poor music, this movie lacks in just about every category.

Don't be fooled by the IMDB credits. This is not a Michael Dorn movie. He's a secondary character in the grand scheme.

Also listed in the Credit's is an actor named "Prince" - which makes me wonder if it's the same artist formerly known as.... Then again, I'm not sure this movie is worth watching just for that.

Big summary... bunch of teams... one has kidneys... one has $35,000.... one has an "Illegal Substance".... and one has $350,000. Add some confusion and mixups as to who needs to meet who, revenge on being taken, and such, and you end up with this mess of a movie.

Given a choice, I'd pass on this movie.