This movie features roaches as super flesh eating killers. This may have been the first movie where roaches were the primary killers, though not the first movie where roaches are killers. "Damnation Alley" featured a scene with killer cockroaches and "Creepshow" had a story that had them. In this one they are the star. Not as good as it could have been this one doesn't have all that many kills in them. I could be wrong on that point, however, because I have not seen this one in quite some time. The roaches have gone killer and this very strange research lady is in town to study them. Yes, she is quite strange as at one point she has her hand in a box on the killer roaches and she is like "They are biting my hand", and she says this in almost a state of ecstasy. There is also one super big roach near the end of this one, like in so many insect films. Not a great movie, but worth checking out on a night you are bored out of your mind.


The story has little to do with Jack London's original novel. I thought the acting was very unnatural, the dubbing was done very sloppily and the story itself contains a fairly large number of inconsistencies and loose ends. Apart from that, the pace of the movie was horrendously slow at some parts.


My mother took me to this movie at the drive-in when i was around seven years old, which is thirty years ago. She had no idea a family movie would be so violent. My clearest memory was of the boy's father's face of pain as he was stabbed in the stomach and killed. This image haunted me for weeks. I had learned that I lived in a world where a person might stab my father at anytime. How could I stop them? How could my father protect himself? You must realise that this stabbing is not fantasy to a seven-year old. It is as real as witnessing an actual event, and has no place in a child's innocent mind. It is sad that we still do not understand the impact that bringing violence into the lives of our children has both on our children and our society. If only parents would protect their children from images of violence with the same vigor that they protect them from images of nudity and sex.


I'll say one thing for Herman, USA: it will probably always play well to Minnesota audiences. I can't imagine that there's another place in the world where a reference to the fast life of Bemidji or a line like "I knew there was something wrong with Iowa guys" would bring down the house. I actually quite enjoyed the first hour or so. Basically, a bunch of lonely country boys take out a personals ad and find their town beset with willing female suitors (is suitors a gender-specific word?). It ain't progressive, to be sure, but it's sorta charming in its own right. Pity that the filmmakers felt the need to tack on a contrived subplot about a conniving golddigger and her violent husband. Overall it's just too cloying for its own good, but you've got to give some props to a film with the guts to give a guy with Kevin Chamberlin's build a nude love scene. I will always applaud the depiction of people who don't meet the usual standards of beauty as sexual, caring human beings, but that's not enough to redeem Herman, USA. To paraphrase Jello Biafra, it's nostalgia for an age that never existed.


The story of the bride fair is an amusing and engaging one, and it is to the filmmaker's credit that he sets out to portray rural Minnesotans with the same respect ordinarily reserved for Coast-dwellers. It is weird, though, to find an independent movie, the brainchild of a single person, that is as unambitious and cliché-ridden as a committee-brewed Hollywood potboiler.

The portrait of rural people is intended to be affectionate, I think, but these characters don't ring true to me--I have had quite a few meals in small-town diners, but never overheard a debate on the merits of different nineteenth-century English novelists. One might suggest that writer/director Semans has no more experience with rural culture than the Coen brothers, and considerably less satiric verve.


No, it's just a cheap 1940s serial using the Cap's good name. If you are a fan of the comic book, you will be greatly disappointed. They have radically changed the character. No shield, no Bucky, no fighting the Nazis, no wings on the side of his mask and most importantly: Captain America is now a District Attorney and no longer a GI.

Dick Purcell as Captain America? Don't look too closely when he changes into his costume. It is pretty obvious that he was not in the best physical shape when he made this serial(can you say flabby?). It is also VERY obvious that a stunt man is performing most of the action here. Almost every chapter has an obligatory fist fight that is shot and performed in exactly the same way. The villain is rather bland and although he uses an alias (The Scarab), he doesn't wear a disguise of any kind. The story is repetitive and very simple. The effects are laughable and the action is average. On the plus side we have sexy Lorna Gray as the D.A.'s assistant and the good Captain gets to ride on a cool looking motorcycle in one early chapter. Overall OK but nothing special.


This movie started out cringe-worthy--but it was meant to, with an overbearing mother, a witch of a rival, and a hesitant beauty queen constantly coming in second. There was some goofy overacting, and a few implausible plot points (She comes in second in EVERY single competition? ALL of them?) Unfortunately, the movie suffers horribly from it's need to, well, be a TV movie. Rather than end at the ending of the movie, an amusing twist in which the killer is (semi-plausibly) revealed, the movie continues for another twenty minutes, just to make sure that justice is done. Of course, now that the killer is revealed, she suddenly undergoes a complete personality shift--her character gets completely rewritten, because the writers don't need to keep her identity secret any more. The cheese completely sinks what otherwise could have been a passably amusing movie.


A `Wacky Chick' flick. A beauty contestant winds up dead and the Usual Suspects are rounded up. Another entry in the vein of the Texas Cheerleader, this is an average example of its type.

Yasmine Bleeth turns in her usual wholesome girl performance, and Jill Clayburgh does a good job as her stressed-out slightly obsessed mom.

Some mildly funny moments listening to the vapid self-serving PR coming out of contestants' mouths. (`I'd like to own a restaurant so I can give left-over food to the homeless.')

You have to ask yourself what people are using for brains when they think a cheerleader spot or beauty crown is worth killing for!


*****Spoiler Ahead*****

I suppose that you shouldn't expect much of a made for TV movie, but this one was especially bad, the plot was a good idea, but badly done, the acting wasn't especially good. And the ending of the film was just terrible. The main character was perfectly normal all the way through the film, and then suddenly when we find out that she was the killer she just turns into a mentally challenged psychopath. It's completely pathetic.

There is only one reason really to watch this film, Yasmin Bleeth, although haven't we all seen her in a swimsuit before ? Don't bother even watching this waste of time, if you want a film about the world of beauty contest then watch "Drop Dead Gorgeous" instead, it's only an infinite number of times better.


Primary plot!Primary direction!Poor interpretation.


During production, this LWT series was titled 'Rocket To The Moon', a title that everyone on set at the time thought was cheesy enough. Then word came through that it had been retitled 'Reach for the Moon', as if this the addition of this new word would evoke heavy metaphorical meanings involving the relationships and aspirations of the characters. This same heavy handed lack of subtlety and understanding is clear throughout the very fabric of the entire series, and the same tired and boring love-triangle storyline is actually stretched out over 7 episodes! Any television program that decides to use the 'love-triangle' storyline for even a single episode is pushing it, but to smear it over seven episodes is unforgivable. There are reasons to watch however, with the scenery of the Isle of Wight certainly providing a beautiful setting, and the seemingly effortless performance of Lynda Bellingham hitting all the right comedy marks. This, however is not enough. A number of performances are noticeable , especially when placed against the static and emotionless wasteland which Jonathan Kerrigan refers to as his face. I have already mentioned Lynda Bellingham in the role of 'fussy mother' (yes, thats as far as character development and back-story goes), but I was impressed by the actor Maurice Roeves (who is by far the most experienced actor in the cast, having appeared in everything from classic movies such as Richard Attenborough's 'Oh What a Lovely War', and 'The Eagle Has Landed', and TV including Baywatch, Holby City, The Bill, Eastenders, Cheers, Doctor Who in the 80s, Star Trek, and even going to Hollywood with Sylvestor Stallone in 1995s Judge Dredd) whose performance reminded me very much of actual teachers I have met - often incapable men, whose lives are tinged with a very sad streak. It is refreshing to see that Roeves is still getting work, having also appeared in the 1998 British film 'The Acid House' and even more recently alongside the wonderful Maria Bello and Sean Bean in 'The Dark'. The standout reason to watch this series, even though his appearances are very few. Another actor who tries his hardest to elevate the program, is Ben Miles, in the role of the sex-mad 'typical man' brother (once again, what an original character!). As with Roeves, the CV says it all. After elevating this, Miles has since appeared in the Hollywood movie 'V for Vendetta', and the 2001 star studded film 'The Affair of the Necklace', alongside Brian Cox, Adrien Brody, Christopher Walken and Jonathan Pryce. Unfortunately the fairly capable actors I have mentioned are resigned to relatively small roles in comparison to the dramatic driftwood that is Kerrigan and Saira Todd, both of whom seem to have been in Casualty for too long, and haven't yet learned to act. Even the tolerable Frances Grey is made to suffer in the presence of such theatrically fetal mannequins, and unfortunately for her, the lasting memory I have of her from the set, is of the AD asking for another take of a relatively complex shot because during the take, she subconsciously 'pulled her knickers out of her crack!'. Familiar faces appear in each episode - child actors from CBBC programs, and dramas such as '2 Point 4 Children', and other regulars from commercials such as Mr Ben's ("they'll remember me for this"), Lynda 'the Oxo lady' Bellingham, and others that I don't even want to remember. Each episode halfheartedly tries to 'deal with issues' such as teenage pregnancy, disruptive pupils, and rocket building(!)... things that Grange Hill was doing better when my parents were young! Overall, this series was a disappointment, and a wasted opportunity to craft a genuinely interesting and well developed drama series. Unfortunately, for them they took the easy route, both in the writing and (for the most part) in the casting. I would recommend both 'Waterloo Road' and 'The Street',to fans of good drama - the latter in particular which managed to achieve this. If you like the Isle of Wight, don't 'reach for the moon', reach for the holiday brochure instead - it probably contains more character development!


This well-meant film falls just a bit short, and unfortunately in too many areas.

The scenery is gorgeous, with vistas of north-central Vermont providing the setting for this mid-century tale. Quebec Bill endeavors to go back to his whiskey-running past in order to save his farm.

Going back and forth between scenes of magical realism and straight-forward action, this film rarely hits its stride.

Kris Kristofferson as Quebec Bill seems pretty stilted, or else it's his lines; or else his cross of Yankee and Quebecois accents. Anyway, he just comes off as a low-key blow-hard. His dialogs with Gary Farmer's Coville character do sparkle, though. William Sanderson's Rat Kinneson is solid. Charlie McDermott shows some real potential as young Wild Bill; but his part's not large enough to carry a scene and he never steals one. Luis Guzman shows up on Lake Memphramagog (with a fine stand-in performance by Lake Willoughby) as a monk with a boys'n'the hood accent: who knows? And then there's Bujold's Cordelia: an oracle like her namesake, she channels Yoda as she intones lines like "You will marry a Quebec woman!"?!? Just too weird and nowhere near enigmatic enough.

The end gets really choppy. Again a bad mix of magical realism and the concrete. And Yoda never provides an answer we can understand.


Could possibly be the worst film ever made. At least plan 9 From Outer Space was funny. I can't believe they talked someone into actually putting up money to make this thing. Complete waste of celluloid. Before I saw this crap I had some respect for Kristophersson. I guess somebody needed a tax write off. Please, in the name of all that which does not suck, stop whoever made this, before they suck again!This movie should be avoided by all people who are not on LSD, or my crazy cousin that insists we're part Native American.If you are in the woods, and an owl starts talking to you, see a psychiatrist. It is not necessary to make a movie about it.


The movie plot seems to have been constructed from a disjointed dream. There is not enough realism to hold the viewer's interest. The Vermont Farm scene was a failed opportunity to show the way farms were set up and farm families lived which would have been interesting and entertaining. There was little if no research into the whiskey bootlegging trade of the period. The costumes of the Canadians looked like something from the French Revolution, totally unbelievable. The fiddle playing was good and of the time period but Chris's motions while supposedly playing were unbelievable. The owl's appearance was a never explained mystery and the train disappearing into thin air was too much. I couldn't understand how a live trout got frozen into the ice and why two men in the wilderness without food would release the trout, a good food source.


OK... so... I really like Kris Kristofferson and his usual easy going delivery of lines in his movies. Age has helped him with his soft spoken low energy style and he will steal a scene effortlessly. But, Disappearance is his misstep. Holy Moly, this was a bad movie!

I must give kudos to the cinematography and and the actors, including Kris, for trying their darndest to make sense from this goofy, confusing story! None of it made sense and Kris probably didn't understand it either and he was just going through the motions hoping someone would come up to him and tell him what it was all about!

I don't care that everyone on this movie was doing out of love for the project, or some such nonsense... I've seen low budget movies that had a plot for goodness sake! This had none, zilcho, nada, zippo, empty of reason... a complete waste of good talent, scenery and celluloid!

I rented this piece of garbage for a buck, and I want my money back! I want my 2 hours back I invested on this Grade F waste of my time! Don't watch this movie, or waste 1 minute of your valuable time while passing through a room where it's playing or even open up the case that is holding the DVD! Believe me, you'll thank me for the advice!


I watched this movie so that you don't have to! I have great respect for Kris Kristofferson, but what was he thinking? He did this for scale?

At least the film's title practices truth in advertising, since people and objects routinely disappear throughout the film, adding to the confusion. Kristofferson mentions this in his commentary that even he wasn't sure if Genevieve Bujold's character really existed. This does not bode well for the viewer being able to follow the story!

The "making of" feature was far more interesting than the movie itself. It explores the difficulty cobbling together funding for an indie, even as the film is being shot.

To it's credit, this movie is visually pleasing and doesn't in any way look like a movie made with just slightly over 1M. Too bad the money wasn't spent on a better project.


Like the previous poster, I am from northern Vermont, and I was inclined to like this film. However, not since "Red Zone Cuba" have I seen such a confusing plot. The things the people to bootleg make no sense. Two of the gang paddle across the border send a second party across in a car. Uhm, why? Then they meet two others, and drive up at night in to the bad guy's hideout in a luxury Packard. --Wouldn't just two people in a flatbed truck make more sense? Then, parked outside the garage that holds the targeted hooch, the four fall asleep! When they waken in the morning and and start hauling the whiskey out, of course they're spotted and shot at, losing some of their precious cargo in the process. Then two of the smugglers put the whiskey in a boat and float it over the border. Again, why? I am told by someone whose great uncle really did smuggle in the area, all one needed was to drive a vehicle that could outrun than the U.S. Canada Border Patrol, which back then had a fraction of the resources it has now.

And don't get me started on the last half hour, which made no sense whatsoever.

The only good thing I can say about the film is that Kris Kristopherson has actually grown some charisma with the years.


I just finished watching Disappearances at AFI FEST 2006 with about 30 other people in a mostly vacant 1000 seat auditorium. The festival programmer, after seeing the lack of audience, started his opening comments with, "Well at least a few of those attending the festival have good taste in film". Well Mr. Programmer, after watching this film I must answer back "No we don't, and either do you!" This "back-woods" period piece follows young (not so) Wild Bill as he and his mystic family dangerously run illegal Canadian whiskey across the border during America's prohibition. The old-time outlaws (Kris Kristofferson and company) not only need the money to save their ramshackle Vermont farm but want to introduce little Wild Bill to the virtues of manhood.

Although handsomely photographed, this adventure story lacks what makes films of this sort good, "tension" and believability. Kristofferson's lackluster performance and dry monologue reminds me of a dream I once had where Al Gore was playing the role of Willy Wonka. I just didn't care and when Wild Bills mystic grandmother appears out of thin air to give him advice it just didn't fit. Yes, I almost fell asleep more than once.

Gary Farmer does do a good job as the Cameron Frye in Ferris Bueller character; brother-in-law of Big Bill while the teenage Chris McDermott does uses those piercing blue eyes to his acting benefit.

But overall expect to see Jay Cravens Disappearances playing at a Block Buster $2 Bin near you.


Forgettable pilot that never really explains why Nostradamus is really important to the plot of this movie, but Rob Estes plays a a hunky cop who happens to be Nostradamus for some reason and who battles time-travelling Medieval monks that run around with guns and set people on fire to start the apocalypse. Oh yeah, there's also a sexy FBI agent who happens to be a pyschic and is trying to get Rob to believe everything before it's too late. Too bad they couldn't predict a better plot. Yawn.


Hmmm, started well, like a hybrid of X-Files & First Wave, unfortunately, if the mere notion of Da Vinci's lost time machine is preposterous to you, then the final 'battle' between one man with a pistol and 4 16th century monks armed to the teeth with automatic weapons will seem positively ridiculous equalled only by poor acting, poor script and screenplay, or, in other words, giggle factor 5 captain.


This movie has good intentions, at least in the message "don't be afraid, no matter how tough it can be. Fear will kill you in the end" It's a good message, but the container is so flawed that the message gets squashed by bad acting, complete lack of credibility in the feelings, dialog that's delivered as if it were read out loud, stereotypes instead of breathing, living people.

It abuses from effects such as slow-motion to compensate for a complete lack of credibility in the acting and thus, a lack of emotional force...

The suicidal part of it still reminds me of a low-budget film from the pre-90s, when lesbians seemed to have (at least on celluloid) an utter incapacity of live good, happy lives, and a tendency to get caught in over-the-top dramas that often involved separation, death, or prison.

Had it focused on the rewards of living life according to how we feel it (and not according to how others think we should live it), it would have being less dramatic, more inspiring. But it doesn't, it focuses of pain, on loss and leaves the message at just a theoretical ideal.

I can't see how this movie can be an inspiration to anyone to come out or overcome fear and rejection.

If you're looking for a really good movie that talks about overcoming fear and daring to live what you feel, go back to the magnificent "Desert Hearts" (even better: read the novel!)


Yeah, I made it all the way to the end. It was pretty hard though.

Sometimes I was wondering if there was even a director on set. The acting...well, I don't even know what to say. I thought the girl who played Emily tried her best with the boring, sometimes wacky and sometimes predictable dialog.

I know that it was low budget but the hollow sound and the lighting unfortunately made it look and sound like a 100-minute-long audition tape.

I'm not even going to talk about the ending...

The best thing about the movie was the music.

That being said, I do not recommend this movie to anyone. Even for lesbians who don't have many movies to watch overall, this is nothing to waste your time on. If you're looking for a sad lesbian themed movie, check out The Children's Hour, Lost and Delirious or High Art. Those will all leave you depressed and gloomy but you won't have to suffer cinematic hell in the process.


OK, I don't want to upset anyone who enjoyed this film but it was a really bad movie. Just the way the scenes were edited and the acting, it made me cringe at some points. I really tried to enjoy it but it was like a student film, they must have had the smallest budget. I really liked the story line to an extent and the characters were likable but the film on a whole was just awful. Also, why is it that in almost every film with lesbian characters one of them has to either commit suicide or die or turn straight?!?! This is so sending a wrong and unrealistic message. I gave it 3 stars and everything considered I think that was very kind of me. Only watch this film if you want to laugh at how bad it is.


I loved Heavenly Creatures and make it a point to catch it whenever it is on.

So, imagine my delight when I discovered Love & Suicide while browsing NetFlix. Echoing Heavenly Creatures, an easy choice, to the top of my queue it went.

I watched it last, made myself comfy, and waited. What I thought was some crappy preview of a stoned high school student's prank film project (I laughed out loud once or twice, thinking "that just lowered the bar of straight to video") turned out to be the movie. Horrible acting, amateur direction, weak dialog. I usually enjoy low budget films, there is something tangible and real about them because they cannot afford the superficial stuff to distract from the "meat" the acting, the direction, the plot, the story. I would liken it to a student who hasn't studied for an exam goes in knowing he is going to fail and just puts his head on the desk and sleeps.

In someone else's hands the plot would have serious potential.

Do not expect magic or even a cult classics like, say, Divine's Polyester, or Showgirls, at least there you learn to expect bad acting.

Love & Suicide went from bad, to worse, to the WORST movie I have ever seen.


My friend and I rented this movie for 3.99 at blockbuster. If I'd have known how absolutely horrible this movie was going to be, I wouldn't have paid a cent. I had no warning for this bs. The acting can't even be called acting, the inevitable sex scene is awkward, and you can tell that both girls feel completely uncomfortable doing it, and the male villain... god, who couldn't tell he was going to attack emily And the musical cues... my lord. This movie makes me want to cry. Never rent this. In fact, if you happen to look upon it, gauge out your eyeballs. This movie isn't of God- it's from hell. I'm just gonna take the last couple lines to write blah blah blah shiz cause I really don't want to continue on with this review.


This movie obviously had good intentions. At the end there is a dedication to someone named Kellie who, as a viewer, I can only assume found herself in a situation similar to the one the movie depicts. Perhaps she made the "wrong" choice. That dedication is the ONLY redeeming quality of Love & Suicide.

The movie becomes unbearable from the opening sequence. Once the viewer is already that irritated only about five minutes into the film, it's pretty much going to be downhill after that...which it was. I know the film was low budget and the camera shots were actually pretty good...unfortunately, everything else was horrid. The acting, the plot, the sound quality, the picture quality...the acting. I'm sorry but the acting is horrible. Beyond horrible. It's as if the actors are trying to act like people acting. That's the only way I can think to describe it. As I watched, I actually pictured the script with the stage direction in my mind. None of the movements were natural and none of the characters' reactions to one another fit. In short: the timing is WAY off. The timing of the entire film is way off. I'm no director so I know the limits of my knowledge but I really feel there had to be SOME way to convey the passing of time...until they explained about graduation not being too far away I was under the impression that the first portion of the movie had taken place over the span of a week...a month at most.

All that being said, it's really a shame. This movie truly could have been powerful with a little tweaking. All the moments in the film in which we are supposed to feel something are obvious but only because the set-up is obvious (which is a bad thing). The moving scenes totally fell flat. For instance, when Kaye's brother takes his hat of his head and puts it on hers, we should feel the understanding he has for her, the innocence and protectiveness of the love of her brother...somehow it just doesn't come off that way. There are so many more scenes like this (for example: ALL of the fight scenes) and all they do is take away from the movie. All these things put together, Love & Suicide comes off as one long, cheesy, low-budget commercial.


I registered with IMDb.com just so i could comment about this movie. My god what a steaming pile of horse crap this was! It shouldn't even be touted as a real movie, this is very deceiving. this is a 15 year old's film project at best. The acting is terrible. But even good actors could not save this. The dialog is probably the worst part of this movie. Who the hell wrote this crap? And that constant joke coming from the chubby lesbian about Kaye being a "damsel in distress" got old real fast. God i'd rather have a camel take a wet dump in my ear than watch this crap again. Do not rent this movie. If they gave you the movie for free do not watch it. smash it with a hammer. Even if smashing this video caused you to lose your Hollywood video or blockbuster video account it would be well worth it. this is an abomination. I suppose i have said all i can about this without being redundant. any questions....email me.


SPOILERS, BEWARE!!! Flashdance is a fair movie, in my opinion. Some things do confuse me about it (e.g. Jeanie asks Alex how long it took for her to get so good at dancing; Alex replies "About 25 years," isn't Alex supposed to be 18?) and some things do fascinate me about it (I LOVED the spins!). Overall, though, it intrigued me. When this movie was made, I wasn't even born. I didn't really experience the eighties (I was born in '85) and I have to wonder: sometimes Alex would just run in place a bit, or throw herself all over, not really dancing, just banging in to things, tossing her head back, and waving her arms-was this considered "dancing" back then? If it was, I'm not sure I could've standed it. The spins, the flip, the fluid movements were great, but some of it-my neighbor's toddler could've done better! Also, if Alex is a welder during the day, wouldn't she be tired after a hard day's work? When she doesn't go to work for nearly a week, wouldn't she be laid off? Living in a warehouse-I can almost see it, but not quite. It doesn't seem right that she's a welder, owns a warehouse house, AND is trying to get into ballet. None of it really makes sense. I shouldn't be too judgemental considering my own background, but please. Maybe Jennifer Beals is too feminine for me to see her as a welder, I don't know. But either way, they could've picked a better actress. The actors were fine. I even liked the romance. You make your own decision. But mine is-rent it once, don't see it again-it isn't worth it.


I was a sophomore in college when this movie came out and I had never actually seen it until last night. I finally decided to watch it because I like good dancing and because the movie had such cultural impact. After seeing the movie I am completely baffled by how it had any effect other than putting people to sleep.

The story is pretty preposterous when you think about it. Does anyone actually buy the idea that that beer joint full of gnarly old steel-workers and teamsters could keep their clientèle with the high concept dances that those girls were doing? They would have all been over to Zanzibar faster than you can say "performance art". Can you imagine the reaction of the real life versions of that audience to that bizarre TV watching No theater dance thing that she did? Please.

It seems plausible to me that there could be a woman that worked in a steel yard and was also a dancer--after all both are physically demanding jobs. But I didn't buy for a second that THAT girl worked in a steel yard. And I didn't buy for a second that I was looking at a real steel yard. Steel work is dangerous. You don't keep your work area looking like a junk yard and not end up loosing a limb. I love some of the inane shots like when two welders are sitting in the big corrugated tubes welding. What the hell are they doing in there? Or when she is cutting six inches off of a rusty steel bar with a cutting torch. She was obviously board and just started cutting random things up.

But story holes like that can be overlooked if the movie is fun or at least stimulating in some way. Flashdance doesn't offer anything to balance it, however.

The dancing horrible. It is the spastic twitch-and-pose style that ruined American musicals until...well are we really over it yet? The sensuality that the movie tries for is ruined by Jennifer Beal's complete lack of personality. I mean I am a 42 year old male and when she was supposed to be eating lobster my only reaction was to think that she should get a lobster bib.

You can't really get behind Alex and her dreams because her character is so stupid and shallow. The dog had more going on than she did.

The love affair is flat. It comes across as nothing more than a boss with the hots for one of his workers. Zero passion.

Even the final scene where she dances for Orville Redenbacher and some other stiffs is unsatisfying because the panels reaction is so unbelievable. What serious dancers wouldn't roll their eyes at Alex's lame cheerleader routine? In short the movie had nothing but leg-warmers and large sweatshirts. Oh, yeah, there is a good chunk of nudity when Alex "rescues" her friend from being a useless erotic dancer (a laughable bit of hypocrisy). Other than that the movie is a waste of time. I wish that the MST3K crew were still in business. This would make good fodder for them.


Flashdance is one of those awful, stupid movies that you actually kind-of enjoy, just because they're so crap. I just watched it on TV & my friend and I were amazed at how dopey it was. It's true that Don Simpson and the other producers came up with the idea of a fairly cheap, lowbrow flick with lots of sweaty bodies to help sell a soundtrack of (admitedly catchy) pop, so Flashdance is an odd sort of pioneer: the first MTV movie. Adrian Lyne started out in advertising and it shows because Flashdance is almost a commercial for itself. You've already decided to watch it but the movie has this weird, panicky undercurrent, as though it's frightened that you might change your mind at any moment. It keeps selling itself to you over and over, all the way through, using slick commercial-style editing and glossy close-ups of jiggling breasts. The story is wafer thin (I honestly can't think of another film I've seen with less plot) and it never makes much sense, but its a very contrived, calculating movie, so it feels consistent. People say it's dated but Flashdance was always rubbish. Viewers in the early 80's knew it was just cheesy T&A but it does work in its own silly fashion. There's soppy romance for the chick-flick crowd and stacks of oily, writhing female bodies for their dates, all set to a pumping disco beat. How could it fail? It helps that the dialogue is pointless, so you can grab a popcorn without missing anything major and, if this sort of thing isn't your cup of tea, you can always laugh at the 'interpretive dance' on display. The scene where a stand-in for Jennifer Beals convulses/'dances' on stage in front of a TV with a fan in it and a face full of white clown make-up had us in stitches. A genuine guilty pleasure.


When I first watched this movie, in the 80s, I loved it. I was totally fascinated by the music, the dancing... everything. However, I recently watched the whole thing again on DVD, and I was completely struck by how extremely stupid the storyline was - how it contained holes, inconsistencies and - frankly - a whole lot of crap - and how horrid the dancing was. I mean, in a realistic world, she would NEVER have gotten into that ballet repertory... The whole thing was quite pathetic. The character developments also lacked in depth. I think that this was, very much, a product of the 80s: the film does not hold up today!


I'm a dance teacher and was looking forward to some good dance routines in this film. How sad to have been subjected to such a painful experience.

I had major problems with Jennifer Beals and her character. I found Alex extremely repellent. Beals' face is so young, sweet and innocent, and this very incongruous with Alex's very disturbing lewdness, especially in that disgusting restaurant scene. She also has the temper tantrums of a toddler. It is very difficult to believe that Nick would keep coming back to such a moody teenager after her frequent rantings and ravings, especially after she opens the door of a moving car and chucks a stiletto at him, opting rather to walk home - in the middle of the road - with only one shoe!!!. And what about after her idiotic behaviour after the night at the ballet. In fact, the whole romance was very disturbing - the 30 something year old man going after a girl who looks about 16. Yuck.

As for the dancing, I'm afraid this 80s style is totally dated. What on earth was that TV dance sequence about in the club? Who was supposed to be dancing? I wasn't even sure if it was a woman or a man in drag! And even that famous final sequence is pretty disappointing, especially given the context of an audition for a ballet company. The camera shots of her leap actually ruin it's effect because you can't see what she's doing. And what on earth was she doing when she went past each of the panel pointing at them? And as many other comments have pointed out, she would NEVER get into a ballet company on the strength of that audition - perhaps that's why they don't actually say at the end whether she was successful or not, the closure is the fact that she overcame her fear in the end. Of the 'Flashdancers', I actually thought the best sequence belonged to Cynthia Rhodes (Penny in Dirty Dancing). You could see that she was a real dancer, and her acrobatics were very impressive. This is of course if you can get past her appalling costume and makeup.

There were two good bits in this film - the ballet dancers stretching when Alex goes for the first time to apply for an audition - they look so lovely and classy, and at least this helps to underline the difference between her current dance career and the one she aspires to. The other good scene was the break dancing in the street. I also liked the ice skater's parents, they were funny.

Some other random points - who was Hanna and how did Alex get to know her? What was an 18 year old doing living in a converted warehouse all alone? How did she afford that lovely barre and all the furniture?Where were her family? Was that scene in the 'nude' club really necessary? The person who wrote in their comment that it was something like a Disney film needs their head examined. And anyway, what happened to the ice skater?

Many people said the film was poor but they liked the message - don't give up hope, keep on trying, and your dreams will come true. Watch "The Little Mermaid" instead.


This movie was Jerry Bruckheimer's idea to sell some records . No seriously it was . The thinking behind it is that if you made a film full of pop songs you could stick the tracks on a LP , sell it and make even more money for the studio . You could also release a few tracks as singles and intercut the promo video with clips from the movie so that when MTV play a track you're actually getting free advertising for the movie . This is a good business deal but an artistic disaster because many of us still have nightmares about Hollywood movies from the 1980s and I rate the mid 1980s as the poorest time in artistic terms for American film making and FLASHDANCE opened the door to this " Let's make a 90 minute pop video instead of a movie " type film making

Jennifer Beals plays Alex Owens a dancer who works as a welder to make ends meet and right away logic disappears with this career choice . Welding is a fairly sophisticated trade , it's not something you walk into and learn in five minutes . There's other gaps in logic like ballet dancing and " flashdancing " being somehow similar . ie if you apply to be a ballet dancer and do some hot , dirty flashdancing the male judges might want to meet you after the audition but you won't get the job . it's kind of like saying that screen writing , novel writing and play writing are somehow the same when they're not

But I guess none of this mattered to Jerry when he asked director Adrian Lyne to make the movie . Actually Lyne almost makes a very sexy movie , JenniferBeals is very sweet and innocent looking . Fortunately I sussed out why her face is brightly lit in close up while her silhouette is darkly litin long shots except when the camera cuts to close ups of her heavenly toned body . That's because a body double is used most of the time and frequently the body double is a man ! I bet there's a few naughty boys who are feeling guilty not to mention slightly disgusted to know that


If it wasn't for the terrific music, I would not hesitate to give this cinematic underachievement 2/10. But the music actually makes me like certain passages, and so I give it 5/10.


I give "Flashdance" a lowest rating of 1 out of 10 because it's nothing more than a series of music videos with a movie short surrounding the music videos, in order to clock in as a feature length film. Since when does that count as film? Jennifer Beals plays Alex Owens, an aspiring 18-year-old dancer, who, incomprehensibly, has a job as a welder in a Pittsburgh steel factory. Not a line of work most older women find their way into, much less 18-year-olds fresh out of high school. Meanwhile, at night she works as an exotic dancer, who never actually takes off her clothes, in a greasy spoon bar called Mawby's. Yet looking at the well choreographed and well polished dance routines the girls do every night at Mawby's, you would think they were working at the best casino on the Las Vegas Strip.

Alex ends up having a predictable romance with her boss, Nick Hurley (Michael Nouri), who is about twice her age. After resisting Nick's advances, because going out with the boss isn't a good idea, she wastes no time in going all the way with him after their first date. Alex and Nick make no effort to hide their relationship on the job, which makes no sense given how it is likely to look to Alex's co-workers.

When Beals isn't being doubled for the many dance sequences in the movie, her character spends most her time throwing temper tantrums. Alex's dream is to get an invitation only audition at the prestigious Pittsburgh Conservatory of Dance. Inexplicably, when her boss/boyfriend helps her get the audition she's been dreaming of, she's throws one her tantrums. She angrily tells Nick she isn't doing the audition because of his intervention, and then gets out of his car in the middle of a busy tunnel. This is just one scene that leaves you wondering what the hell the makers were thinking when they were making this.

Of course, Alex does eventually get her audition at the Conservatory. She puts on a dance routine before the Conservatory board that is so ridiculous that you would think it was in a movie marketed to the MTV generation. Oh yeah, it is a dance routine in a movie marketed to the MTV generation.

I don't think I can judge whether or not Beals can actually act well on the basis of what I saw in "Flashdance". This is because the character she is forced to play is so poorly written, that I don't think it is a fair litmus test of her acting abilities.

You have to hand it to the makers of "Flashdance" though. This movie is proof that the poorest film making can be covered up by a slick marketing campaign. In this case a best selling and award winning soundtrack and music videos for said soundtrack in heavy rotation on MTV. If they had devoted more of their energy to the writing of the script, then they might have been able to come up with a plot and a story with characters that I cared about. Instead what we get are stock characters put in ridiculous scenes any viewer with a functioning brain can't take seriously. A truly forgettable "film".


Well, this may be one of the worst movies ever, but atleast there are some nice t*ts in it. The movie is a very bad spoof of The Blair Witch Project, and should be watched only by those wanting to see some t*ts, and NO point other than to flaunt them.


Wynorski films are always excreble. This is just another case in point. Out of the five naked women shamelessly flaunted here, MAYBE one has real breasts. And that's a strong MAYBE. No humor, no gore, just boobies, boobies, boobies. And some tepid softcore lesbo action. But know what? For fifty cents less than this video rental, I could have rented legitimate porn. Do I feel cheated? With Wynorski, always. So I prepared myself for a letdown, as one must always do.


I have to agree with the other two comments. I waited over a month to see this great new show A&E had been hyping. What a disappointment!!! The show is pretty much all about Ryan Buell. His voice-overs are campy, not creepy. It sounds as if he is talking into a can. As of the second episode, which is roughly 30 minutes or so (if you take out the commercials) he is being chased or followed by something that he knows is demonic. He can't say the name, anytime someone needs to convey that name, they write it on a piece of paper and hand it to someone else. Not particularly informative or entertaining or believable for the rest of us. Why can't he say the name?...supposedly it would give the demon more power. Funny, I always thought demons wanted to hide their true identities. If you know the exact name of the demon, doesn't it make it easier for you to cast them out. Now the next episode, which airs in just a little while is titled "exorcism". So is Ryan in need of an exorcism already? Not to say that it couldn't happen but the show so far has not given any evidence or proof of anything. I can tell Ryan that if I were a small child, hell if I was an adult, and someone gave me a little bottle of holy water to chase away something that was terrifying me, I would look elsewhere for help!!! Besides which, if you don't use holy water & blessings, etc. in the right way don't you risk just further infuriating whatever is already mad at you? I will probably watch tonight but if these episodes are as ridiculous as the first, it will probably be the last time I watch it!


I initially tuned in to Paranormal State because I (more or less) find the paranormal search genre to be interesting TV, if nothing else.

I really enjoy Ghost Hunters because well over half of their investigations result in total debunking, and find Most Haunted to be hilarious with its use of mediums and frumpy British women with Paris Hilton day-glo eyes fainting from fear/demonic presences all shot in lovely night-vision green.

Paranormal State has none of this appeal. It feels like it was cobbled together from "leads" that Ghost Hunters rejected. The episodes ranged from trailer trash families and single mothers with emo adolescents sitting around and scaring themselves, to an "interview" with a 5 year old about the monster who lives in his room (the monster goes RAWRRR, we are told). All of these people calling upon a college club to solve their problems. The whole show is about Ryan and his partner, his enormous ego. He leads his troupe of doe-eyed coeds around, except when a case is deemed "too extreme" and orders them to remain at the hotel HAHAHA. Better leave it to the pros, ie himself.

The unwitting comedy of this show is all in how gullible the participants are. Ryan spins his tales of being hunted, followed, etc by a demon that he first encountered when the Catholic Church recruited him to assist on a case. Sorry, but the Catholic Church has people who can do that, they don't need the day-shift manager at Quiznos to chip in his 2 cents.

This show is awful, shame on A&E for bankrolling this silliness, trying to follow in the footsteps of some much better paranormal-themed shows. It's almost unintentionally funny, except that Ryan is so arrogant and devoid of charisma that watching the show long enough to mock it isn't worth the trouble.


For awhile I was hooked on shows like Ghost Hunters and Destination Truth and stuff, even though I thought they were full of crap I found them interesting and entertaining, and that's why we watch entertainment TV. It's fun to turn off your brain and believe that every shadow caught on camera is not just some shadow, but some insane asylum inmate's tormented spirit or something, so long as you can snap back to the real world later.

That being said, enjoying Paranormal State requires more than merely shutting your brain off, it requires you to consume lead in large doses on a regular basis during your childhood, then suffer repeated head trauma, then take up huffing paint in your teens. Then you have to get high/drunk and watch.

Paranormal State is beyond the pseudoscience (which I can enjoy with a degree of critical thinking) that you'll find on Ghost Hunters (which I still find to be reasonably interesting and entertaining program), it's pseudo... everything.

The show follows the adventures of a group of students from Penn State University (not to be confused with University of Pennsylvania) lead by Ryan Buell as they take it upon themselves to exorcise demons and spirits using ceremonies from whatever religion seems most dramatic at the time (ranging from Catholic exorcisms performed by college coeds to Wiccan spells cast by socially awkward goths, to Native American cleansing rituals. To their credit, these are performed by Native Americans). If you believe in Wicca or you're Catholic or a follower of a traditional Native American religions, I think you'd want their cleansing rituals performed by someone who... isn't a maladjusted college student with some free time. I don't remember the scene in the exorcist where the priests threw up their hands and said "it's no use! Call up an after school club from the state college. This one is too much for us. They've probably read the Wikipedia article on exorcisms." The show is frankly insulting to the intelligence to the viewer. The show's opening title sequence has Ryan talking about PRS (the Paranormal Research Society), saying that when he came to Penn State (notice you don't see any shows where the host says the same thing, but instead of Penn State he says "When I came to MIT" or "After I got my theoretical physics degree...") he found other people with similar interest in the paranormal. He says they are sometimes "warriors." I remember when I used to pretend I was a warrior and I fought ghosts. I was six. Then the emotionless Ryan brings out the flamboyant and obnoxious Chip Coffey, who pretends to go into trances and become possessed by cussing at the cast. Awesome. I thought people had learned some sense about how ridiculous the idea of psychics and mediums is after "Crossing Over" went off the air. The show takes itself way too seriously, as this small group of societal misfits pretends they are battling against some ancient, cosmic evil. Production values are low, stories are boring, and, unlike Ghost Hunters, which will occasionally catch something anomalous (although likely explainable, but interesting nonetheless) on their equipment, PS requires you to believe that the noises and creaks that they hear are evidence of demons, ghouls, and possibly leprechauns. The only thing scary about this show is that there are people out there that take it seriously. The only thing paranormal about it is that the people on it are able to make each episode while keeping a straight face.

Call me jaded, but I feel like the great mysteries of the universe and the afterlife are too great to be solved in a half-hour TV show by a journalism undergrad at a state school.

All that being said, I highly recommend that everyone watch this show at least once, if for no other reason than the sheer entertainment derived from watching a truly terrible movie or TV show. Or you can make a drinking game out of it. I think the second would be preferable.


When this show first aired I will admit to being intrigued by the premise and the setting. With an open mind I watched the first two episodes and naturally dismissed it as being destined to run for a half-season at most. I happened to be watching A/E recently and witnessed an ad for this garbage and I could barely contain my surprise. I truly hope people are watching this for a laugh and not taking it seriously. The characters are truly some of the most ridiculous and outright laughable on television, scripted or otherwise. It's obviously generating ratings so I must give the creators credit for establishing and maintaining a fanbase, but I seriously hope no one is watching this under any pretense of seriousness.


This show is absolutely ridiculous. Yes, of course its fake. But it is agonizing to watch. I personally know more creative film influenced minds that could "make" this seem real. The young lead male couldn't be more unconvincing. He line-reads everything he says. Are we really suppose to believe he knows what he is talking about? There is a plethora of ways to Blair-Witch this show up. Fear does not breed from what seems "cool" and computer generated. Nor does it generate from such proverbial lines as "What was that? Did you hear that?" Also, There are real convincing psychics out there that don't just "Want to be on screen". Another DUH-Factor is... how do these producers think we are actually going to buy that paranormal activity will just magically happen within the 2 possibly 3 days (if we are lucky) they film. I don't think so. A 2 + week at one site would be more convincing. It is also disarming that they think including "Nasa radar checks" and computer's that show fancy bs really make us scared. AND IE: Exorcisms should not be staged like the film "The Exorcist". When are they going to get it right? Possession of the Devil or other evil spirits influence people differently. They don't just snarl and lower their voice like Linda Blair or fallel around like Courtney Love on a drug binge. As stated better concentrations on "psychic ability" would aid this show greatly. We want to see and hear EVERYTHING that supposingly flashes before them. Not cut-away to other story bs. On a final note- Shooting Stars do not generate interest when you showed fake pictures of UFO's ahead of time. Might I stress again the young dark haired man that hosts this show is absolutely down-right awful. Avoid this show. For fright: watch old Unsolved Mystery episodes... not the new ones (the recreation got it oh-so wrong). But that is for a different blog.


This show, Paranormal State, has an almost "Blairwitch Project" feel to it. As in, you're watching a 'documentary' that's actually just a scripted movie, made to look and feel like a documentary.

My biggest problem with the show, is their 'go to' outside advisers of the Warren's, who were made famous for their 'investigations' of the Amityville murders, which were shown to be completely fraudulent, just based upon the police reports of the family's deaths! (such as the eldest daughter actually having been involved in the entire thing, to the point of possibly even helping with some of the deaths!) Then there's the way they constantly jump to blaming demons for everything. Not to mention how haughty the group is about what cases they take. They don't want to help those who need it most, they just want the weirdest cases, that will get them the most press and attention.

They're complete frauds, plain and simple.


"Paranormal State" is an interesting show for most paranormal believers. I enjoy watching what the "team" has to say and what they "find", however, I know that the entire show along with it's build ups and story lines are completely set up. They go to real haunted locations and I suspect that they speak with actual witnesses. I commonly feel as I watch it that I am not watching non-fiction but an actual movie that is contradictory to reality. I personally would not advise or recommend anyone to watch this show unless you are a basic scare seeker.

Interesting show. Stick to "Ghost Hunters"


The atmosphere in this show is great. There's plenty of excellent buildup, but thats where this show fails. There's way to much build up for nothing. You will constantly see a creepy set up that makes it feel likes something really freaky is coming right out of the corner and then....nothing. Over and over again nothing. You hear plenty of stories of people talking about freaky events but you see none. They show up at these peoples doors, talk about their deep and emotional pasts, set up lame equipment and find nothing! there is nothing on this show thats leads me to believe in anything paranormal. I laugh every time they need to exercise a "horrible spirit" that we as an audience have seen nothing of. They get rid of the spirit that never was and everything is put in a neat little package. A show that looked so freaky and had such great potential leads up to one thing...Nothing!


There really are no redeeming factors about this show. To put it simply, its just terrible. Absolutely dreadful. It's just a dreadful "reality" show. Not only that, it's dreadful fiction.

Imagine this: A bunch of overly-imaginative teenagers get together one night and go "Hey! Let's make a paranormal show just like "Ghost Hunters" and whatnot!" So they grab a camera, harass local residents and film random landscapes behind a painfully "trying-to-be-dramatic-yet-failing-misreably" monologue. This show is basically a bunch of teenagers running around with a home movie camera trying to make a really bad horror documentary. The only difference is this show actually has a budget and writers. A wasted budget and terrible writers.

Oh, the problems, how do I count thee? Well, first off, let's talk about this from a personal level. I am not a total skeptic when it comes to the paranormal. I am willing to believe in whats paranormal and whats not, and I'm sure there are a lot of people who feel the same. So, if you're going to do a show about the paranormal, you have to do a good job convincing the viewer that what they're seeing is either paranormal or not, because the viewer can easily believe otherwise. I hate to compare, but I don't see why not at this point. Take "Ghost Hunters" for example. In "Ghost Hunters" you can tell that the cast is leveled with the audience. They're not totally skeptical, yet they're still willing to keep the possibility of any paranormal anomalies in mind. They have to look at something and be willing to say "this is possible that its simply nothing". And, with that in mind, they set out to try and prove themselves wrong. They use technology and several other gadgets along with constant moderation to determine what is paranormal along with bearing the fact that what they may be monitoring could be nothing in mind. Not only are they trying to convince themselves what is real and what is not, in the process they are trying to convince you. That element of doubt is not present in "Paranormal State". Strike one.

In "Paranormal State", the cast simply says "there's this spooky place, and its HAUNTED, so we're going to find some SPIRITS!" And immediately you know and saying to yourself "Okay, convince me otherwise". The cast is not professional in their interviews. In fact, sometimes it seems like they're just harassing local residents of these so-called "haunted" areas. They have no real evidence to back up their claims besides assumptions and theories, and the best they can must up is somebody who "claims" they can contact the dead, with no one ever backing up who this person is and how valid they really are. They could have easily just picked some random person off the street and said "pretend you can contact spirits for our show" and went at it. In the "Mothman" episode, this just happens. Without any convincing evidence towards the end of the show, they bring this sort of individual out where he does a random, painfully scripted "reading" of a supposed area of how something is "haunted" in order to convince its audience. Very, very poor effort. I feel that one of the main problems with the show is that it feels scripted. During one of the episodes, the cast gets attacked by one of these "paranormal anomalies" at times in an attempt to be dramatic. These sort of dramatic sequences would make any skeptic laugh and even those who are on the fence realize what they're watching is just a bunch of tabloid-esquire trash. If the show's aim was to try and convince their audience that these "paranormal" events are real, they're doing a horrifically poor job at doing so. Strike two.

However, there is always the counter. Just one last viewpoint to see if the show is actually worth something. What if the show isn't trying to convince you that these paranormal events are real and are simply trying to entertain you with good fiction? It even fails on that level as well. If the show's creators were trying to craft fiction to entertain its audience, the writing is too poor and even on a fictional level, it fails to convince the audience that its cast members are really experiencing the unknown in all its full, horrifying glory. The writing is simply not compelling and even, dare I say, boring. Strike three.

So what remains of this show is simply a bunch of teenagers who are too willing or too gullible to believe in the paranormal simply because its simply much more amazing than reality who set out with a camera, a bad script and bad actors to generally just make a really bad horror documentary. Thats all the show is at this point. There is no reason to see it, not even for the entertainment factor, and there's no reason to care about it. To be blunt, its lame. There are absolutely no redeeming factors about this show.


I was excited to see this show when I started seeing the promos on A&E. I've been fascinated with ghosts and the paranormal since I was a kid, and love catching "Ghost Hunters" when it's on (SciFi Channel). I've tried to watch three episodes of "Paranormal State" and only use up my time commenting on it because it's so bad and perpetuates the notion that anyone who believes in the paranormal is a gullible freak. "Paranormal State" is beyond cheesy. Cheesy "Director's Log" voice-overs that will leave you wishing for Captain Kirk. Cheesy teasers going into commercial breaks that are taken completely out of context. Everything paranormal on this show is automatically assumed to be "evil" and the work of a demonic spirit. Then come the exorcists, demonologists, psychics ... like in "Poltergeist" you almost expect the team to leave and say "This house is clear." I very much appreciate the "Ghost Hunters" approach, where they go in to disprove claims, then take away what they can ... and they are almost always reassuring to the client (if they find anything) that haunted does not equal evil. "Paranormal State" is not "so bad it's good" ... it's just plain bad. Didn't A&E used to stand for "Arts & Entertainment"? The art part has long been gone, and the entertainment factor is now waning as well.


I was very excited when Paranormal State first came on A&E. I thought that it may bring some more interesting ghostly evidence. The production value looked good and I really love the logo. Then, after about few episodes in, I started to feel that this show may not be looking for evidence but had a strong religious agenda.

It seems like every case they investigate has some big powerful evil demon that can't even make a teacup move on camera, yet everyone is terrified. Then comes some power of Christ ritual that saves everyone.

Also, there is very little focus on other members of the team. The entire show focuses on Ryan and he feels like one of those people that hands you pamphlets about his church on the street.

Has paranormal phenomenon and demons become the new missionaries of Christianity, scaring people to convert? Really, this should be on a Christian network. I was very disappointed.


I am a fan of the paranormal and I love Ghost Hunters so when this show first came out I decided to give it a try. I could barely sit through one episode. The show is so obviously staged. I mean come on, every single episode involves someone being possessed or involves a demonic force trying to kill the family. Another huge flaw is that these guys never debunk anything. When I watch Ghost Hunters they find evidence and try to disprove it and if they can't then it is evidence. On this show they find a voice or a piece of video evidence and they are very quick to call it a ghost. This completely ruins their credibility unlike TAPS and Ghost Hunters who actually know what they're doing. Honestly if you're interested in the paranormal and want to watch a show about it watch Ghost Hunters.


Even if Ryan wasn't such of an annoying person, this would still be bad, i said even if, where do we begin? "directors log" You will have the urge to snatch his tape recorder and pound it with a hammer or punt it into a lake, a haunted lake of course. Oh how i wish "dead time" was more literal as opposed to what they refer to it as, but alas, no death, maybe a pillow out of place or a "humming noise" oh wait thats the cat. I actually expected to see some sort of evidence or at least something to verify their escapades, don't worry you wont see anything you that you would not see on a normal day.

An entire season and what do they have to show for it, um nothing. No in fact they have less than nothing, they have a waste of time. They took my challenge, the do something for the paranormal challenge. Now in this you actually do something for the paranormal, you could say go on camera and say "i love the paranormal so much I'll draw stick figures of ghosts" or " I love the paranormal so much I'll film hot co-eds pretending to be ghost hunters" you would be wasting film, but wasting it for the paranormal. Or you could say "I'll mess with a demon" but don't say it's name you might get hurt, and you know god doesn't like that, that would be quite a thing for god but he wouldn't like that so don't do that. So i asked them to waste time for the paranormal and they followed suit, they went into an old building looking for "mothman", it was a waste of time, it made no real difference at all, it had no effect, we learned nothing new, it was a waste of time and film.

There amazing detective work is just so uncanny, "well we found your problem" a cat died here so were going to psychically communicate with that cat and tell it to move on, kind of throw some catnip at it, and it'll be OK......directors log...." Captain log star date 541.2 ...oh i mean " directors log, i just brought on a few new investigators, a couple 8's and 9's but this chic is a 10....um yeah....we have a new case... strange things happening.... .......focusing on one of the children.....were going to investigate.." Now we will bring is a psychic, we haven't told them anything this is TV trust us,


I give this nonsense a 2 instead of a 1 because there is a worse show called Haunted Homes. But this kid and his buddies conduct their investigations like total idiots. They assume that there are ghosts from the get go and if they ever find rational explanations behind the experiences they have to be drug kicking and screaming into admitting it. But beyond that, the show's whole format is incredibly annoying. Even though a lot of it seems scripted, the college educated kids who make up the the cast can barely speak English but still insist on trying to use "big" words they obviously don't understand. And head investigator Ryan's ridiculously self important voiceovers make me just want to throw the TV through the window. (and he looks stoned all the time). In short, this group make the guys from TAPS on Ghost Hunters look like MIT scientists!


This show was rushed, and relied heavily on surprise cuts to commercials (When it came back from commercial, the noise or "surprise" was something simple like a mouse) This is a pure rip-off of Ghost Hunters and it attempts to go "beyond" them, and fails miserably. Also, what is with the Directors log thing? Is this star trek? It just ruins the novelty of this show, which wore off quick. The only reason it's been watched is that people want to laugh at the pure anti-climatic nature of it. They never find anything, and most likely never will. Funnily enough, they always point out something that is the thing they are "hunting" and guess what?! It's the local radio station's tower light that is blinking red!


Let me first off say that I am a believer of ghosts, and I do indeed know they exist. I have had enough experiences with them to know they are there.

What I hate is the people who bring the Bible and Religion into all of this. People forget there is more than one "Bible", thousands of religions and beliefs, and different ways to interpret what is said in the Bible. Not everyone believes in God, and not everyone believes in stereo-typical religion.

Religion does not make everything fact, one of the things I should mention in the Bible that many do not know is that even the most rampant Bible thumper is breaking the very rules written within....you are supposed to never wear more than one fabric at one time, slavery is OK, and you may murder your neighbor under certain circumstances. None of this, "Oh that was the Old testament, and now we have the New Testament." If the Bible is the word of God, and cannot be changed..there should be no changes, or versions. Religion is full of misinterpretations, mixed facts, and people who so blindly follow it that there, "Is no other way." The excuses these said blind followers use are either pathetic, or they themselves cannot explain the discrepancies properly, and instead use excuses handed down to them from either their Pastor or teacher.

But anyhow, onto the review. I am a decent fan of "Ghost Hunters" and when I heard this show was coming soon, I was pretty excited and thought it had some potential. As much as I like watching "Ghost Hunters", I do not like some of their members, and I do not like the way they can dismiss a place as being haunted, yet cannot explain anything that is going on. Just because your investigation equipment does not pick it up, does not mean the camera filming the show did not. I am glad they are skeptical, but it's like they do not understand that just because you did not get anything on your recorder and film does not make the place haunted or not. If Ghosts were that easy to capture, it would be known as a fact, not a belief. It's more of a "right place at the right time" kind of thing, as well as if there is something there, what makes you think it's going to "perform" for you? This show is kind of silly. It's usually boring, and there is lots of talk, lots of psychics, yet hardly anything happens. The main guy's filtered narration is usually either boring to listen to, or is basically not needed.

Also, the reliance on psychics is too abundant, as I believe VERY few of them are actually gifted. Silvia Brown is one I definitely believe in, but most are sometimes hard to believe.

I really wanted to like this show, but of the few I have seen I have yet to be terribly impressed.


Can anyone give me a reason why only one American dies in this movie, and when he does, it is supposed to be a very emotional scene, yet when the Operation Delta Force team kills hundreds of Russians, in slow-motion action scenes, or thousands of Arabs, also in slow-motion action scenes, you are supposed to cheer and say "Take that, you non-American monsters!". I know I used "slow-motion action scenes" a lot, but that is because every action scene in this movie is in, you guessed it, slow-motion. Every last one of them... And this squad should be called "Invincible Slow-Motion Bullet-Dodging Force", since they seem to have supernatural powers that help them to dodge bullets. And if this supernatural power fails, they have some kind of regeneration superpower, which is all they need to kill the complete non-American army that stands between them and victory. By this point, nobody cares since they have been put to sleep by another laughable slow-motion action scene... That is if they are not laughing out loud at the bad acting, cheesy dialogues and incredibly poor story. Which is what I did... The cast is made of unknown actors, which will probably remain unknown since they don't even play characters. They are just playing guys with guns(and, lets not forget, superpowers)... The only quality is that the special effects are surprisingly not that bad(although they are in slow-motion) for a TV movie... But it still sucks... and at the same time is so bad it's good... OK, maybe at the end it gets a little too repetitive...

25%


Bad sequels.....this one's a real one! When the first movie was very very bad, you have to be fool to make a sequel.....Worse actors, worse scenario,worse special effects,worse movie!!! This is history! Bad history! I give it 0 and a half (for laughs) out of *****.


What can you say after watching this movie? That is, if you had the interest and concentration to see it to the end. I was left speechless, due to the amazingly dull story, annoying situations where one American equals that of a fifty or more Iraqis, and boring dialogue. I think that if this movie has something to teach, it probably goes like "Don't screw with US, or we'll come and kick your butts". Plus, this film truly encourages and votes for killing masses of foreigners, in the name of war. I got the image of tackling chess pieces out of the playing board. Except, now it's fast and there's not so much thinking. And on top of that.. no character there has any spirit; then, how can you care at all what happens to any of them. Excluding war movie fans with no taste, I wouldn't recommend this to anyone. There should always be something more interesting to do.


Normally i would applaud a movie that tries to do something different or original in a genre. It is obvious that this movie is some sort of parody on ninja movies. And i really did my best to enjoy the movie. But I just couldn't. The jokes aren't funny enough! (I've seen my share of Japanese movies. And most of the times I like and understand the humor used in those movies. "Red Shadow" is just silly!)The characters that are portrayed in this movie know that this isn't a serious movie and show that all is about the fun. Look at the characters from parodies like "Hot Shots" or "Scary Movie". Everything they do on the screen is done with a straight face and never fall out of character! And because of this, certain scenes become funny and hilarious. In "Red Shadow" the actors never achieve that. The shadow ninja's supposed to be very skilled and deadly. Sadly the actors don't do their best in convincing us of their talents. They don't do things with a straight face. The jokes would have worked better if they did! The bad choreography of the action scenes also damaged the viewing experience for me. I like humor in martial arts movies as long as the action is good. "Red Shadow" just fails in that department. So what is left to be enjoyed. Well,the music (techno) was uplifting. It had to be as the action it self never is exciting. And there are some short dramatic scenes that are good but simple. The use of humor,lack of story and depth make me think that this movie is meant for children. But I do wonder if children actually would like this movie. Waste of time!


This is the worst kind of film.

The plot is ludicrous, the characters are unrealistic stereotypes who never look like they believe it themselves. Are white people such monsters that they will continue to call two white child rapists in their 20s "good boys" and need to be persuaded that this might be grounds for provocation? Are black people universally inspiring? Do the Ku Klux Klan really stand outside court rooms shooting at lawyers with nobody intervening? Do judges really think that a fair trial can be conducted when the jury can hear a mob outside shouting "Kill him"? Do black people really stand shoulder to shoulder with the Klan waiting to hear the verdict? Do wives really take several months to realise that their husband might be defending a man from unfair hanging because he knew might have done the same thing? Do juries really acquit people of murder because they feel sorry for them? Do lawyers really use a defense of sanity in order to persuade people that their client was temporarily insane?

Worst of all, any high-minded principles of this film were lost to the completely exploitative and gratuitous use of sexual crime to titillate the audience. Was the subject of rape, let alone child gang rape, really in competent hands here? Is it really a subject that belongs in Hollywood hands? And if so, why the completely gratuitous kidnap and stripping of Sandra Bullock? And the completely pointless statutory rape charge against one of the witnesses? Seems like the director didn't feel THAT strongly about sex crime after all.

This was taking the excellent plot of To Kill a Mockingbird and making a crass, shallow, tasteless money-spinner from it. Shame on them.


A Time To Kill is based on John Grisham's first novel, the one he wrote before he was famous, and the one that didn't skyrocket him to fame. (That would be accomplished by "The Firm"). That's why this movie didn't get made until much later, after Grisham was off churning out meaningless books with the movie dollar signs fresh in his head. Unlike most of those, this book was actually about something. It had meat, it had weight, and it had heart.

But it also had a fatal flaw, and this fatal flaw gets translated into the movie. Namely, "A Time To Kill" sets you up.

Here we have a black man (Jackson), on trial for the murder of two white men who brutally raped and tortured his 10-year-old daughter. We have an underdog lawyer (McConaughey) battling the big bad system to save his client. And oh, by the way, the whole thing is set against the backdrop of racism in Mississippi, complete with hooded KKK men burning crosses.

In other words, we're supposed to sympathize with Carl Lee Hailey. We're supposed to believe that a father who loves his daughter is justified in killing the men who raped her. We're supposed to feel the injustice of a system where a racist all-white jury could judge a black man who was just trying to avenge a brutal crime. We're supposed feel like we're standing alongside the people chanting "Free Carl Lee".

But the racism issue is a smokescreen, and the whole thing is contrived. Carl Lee Hailey was a vigilante. Yes, there were mitigating circumstances for what he did, but the fact remains that he wasn't innocent. This would have been true no matter what his skin colour, or the skin colour of the assailants of his daughter, the judge, the jury, or anyone else.

And what's so heavy-handed about this film is that it paints anyone who believes Carl Lee should have been convicted is a racist. The message seems to be that if you believe that the law shouldn't be taken into people's own hands, then you might as well be burning crosses on a lawn somewhere wearing a hood.

This isn't the first time a heavy dose of sentimentalism is inserted into a story like this, and it won't be the last. As a movie, A Time To Kill stays pretty faithful to the book, and the acting isn't half bad. But it played the hand it had been dealt, really. Even a good cast can't elevate bad source material.


There are other reviews here expressing similar views, but I still feel impelled to add my comments. The film is generally well-made from a technical point of view, apart from possibly being too long. The acting is mostly very good, although Kevin Spacey isn't given much space to explain his character's motivation (apparently ambition rather than racism), and Sandra Bullock's only function seems to be as eye candy, which she admittedly manages very well.

At a fundamental level the film's heart is in the right place in being opposed to racism, and I get the impression that it tried to set out to be some kind of definitive treatment of racism, perhaps why so many famous names agreed to be in it. However, it seems the writers bit off far more than they could chew (I haven't read the book, so I don't know how much of that is down to Grisham). The biggest problem, as many others have said, is that it ends up advocating vigilante justice. Aside from the fact that I don't agree with that position, I don't think that such a view actually helps the anti-racist cause at all - it's more likely to be applied to acquit white defendants who kill black victims. At the end the prosecutor invites the jury (and the audience) to imagine that the raped girl was white - but follow that through and imagine the defendant to be a white man who murdered black rapists ... in the end the message seems to be that it's OK to kill someone as long as you hate them enough. It's also convenient that the man killed was presented as totally evil and his guilt was in no doubt, which removes any of the moral ambiguity likely in a real case.

Samuel L Jackson gives an excellent performance, but unfortunately this also undermines the plot - he comes across as someone with considerable integrity, but it's hard to believe that he would be willing to hide behind an insanity plea (and indeed he doesn't, when push comes to shove). We're presumably supposed to think that it's because he faces the death penalty, but in fact at one point he's offered a plea of manslaughter, although if you blink you might miss it. Why not take it, given that he must know his chances of acquittal are slim? Or if he wants to make a stand in court, why plead insanity?

There are less serious flaws too. The medical experts, on whose testimony the case supposedly rests, are jokes - both are discredited for highly implausible reasons, and neither of them offers any real psychiatric diagnosis. The message seems to be that expert witnesses will say whatever they're asked to say, and shouldn't be believed. The fact that the injured policeman supports Jackson is moderately plausible, but still a bit convenient (and what if he had died?) I find it hard to believe that the KKK would march down the street in broad daylight. Other apparently serious crimes (riot, arson, kidnapping, attempted murder) go by without any visible attempt to detect or prosecute them. And the scene where the dog comes bounding back is ludicrous.

My final reaction is to be left feeling rather dirty - as though I must be a racist because I disagree with the resolution. It may be that the film intended to explore different viewpoints and leave the audience to decide, but if so they seem to have forgotten it by the time they got to the end. The film did make me think about my views, read what other people thought here and add my own opinion, so at some level maybe it succeeded - but I worry that it may have re-inforced highly illiberal views in some people, which I hope is the opposite of what it intended.

Final thought - try watching Law and Order, it covers issues like this with much more depth in about 38 minutes of screen time!


First things first - though I believe Joel Schumacher is at best a mediocre director and more often (as here) downright bad, the lion's share of the blame for this ugly travesty of a film must go to John Grisham whose novel this is based on.

Set at an undetermined point in time (the 50s? the 70s? now?), the film opens with the rape and murder of a child by rednecks so caricatured that their purpose seems to be to reassure racists that "at least we're not that bad" Cut to the bad guys arriving at the courthouse when the girls father, Samuel L Jackson, fearful they will get off on some technicality, guns them down in cold blood before the trial.

The setting is a 'deep south' that probably never existed - the few black characters live in shacks and seem to pick cotton, the dyed-in-the-wool racists (Kiefer Sutherland is a cartoon version of a Klansman) are laughable in their villainy. The set-piece is the trial: for the defence, are the "good guys" - a milquetoast lawyer played by Matthew McConaughey as though in a coma, his assistant played by Sandra Bullock's breasts (she doesn't seem to serve any other narrative purpose) and Donald Sutherland as the requisite drunk-lawyer-who-sobers-up-to-fight-the-good-fight. For the prosecution, Kevin Spacey goes through the motions of being demon spawn, while in the town at large, crosses are burned, witness are intimidated and the local citizens don't seem to care

Some of the reviews here claim the film immoral, since surely Samuel Jackson is a killer and should trust to the forces of the law rather than get off on a feeble heart-tugging piece of oratory by Matthew McConaughey. To be honest, objectionable though the underlying message "Vigilante justice is good" might be, everything about the movie stinks: the characterizations are pitiful, the acting leaden, the direction plodding, the screenplay and the dialogue almost verging on parody. Peter Menzies lush, 50s Technicolor cinematography is pretty but derivative.

And it goes on for nearly two and a half hours!!

What's left to say? This is a waste of 141 minutes of anyone's life, it is tedious, vacuous and hammy, and, almost as an afterthought, it is morally repugnant.


I have not read "A Time to Kill" by John Grisham, and perhaps that would have helped understand the film better. But perhaps not. I hear this is the most faithful Grisham adaption yet, and if that is true, I can see why so many publishers turned down the novel when Grisham introduced it as his first work.

"A Time to Kill" is one of those films that is seriously confused and wants to do too many things at once. It wants to be a suspenseful crowd-pleasing thriller and, at the same time, a film dedicated to exploring certain social and moral questions. Let's face it, those two types of films do not go together in Hollywood, which is why "Dead Man Walking" had to be made independently.

The story involves a young lawyer named Jake (Matthew McConaughy) out to defend a black man named Carl (Samuel L. Jackson) from murdering two hillbillies that brutally raped his young daughter. The day before the rapists' trial, Carl hid in a closet in the courthouse and when the rapists were brought through the building, he charged out and shot both of them dead. To help out with the defense, Jack accepts the help of a former law student (Sandra Bullock), who proves that her role in this film was totally unnecessary, and put in the film only for marketing purposes.

Meanwhile, one of the rapist's kid brother (Kiefer Sutherland) was angered that a black man killed his brother and decided to act out a revenge. All of this leads to a shooting in front of the courthouse, a kidnapping, a brutal beating, and race riot. I'll admit that all of this held my attention greatly throughout the film, in addition to the courtroom scenes. What I later objected to was the film's handling of ethical questions and its use of formulas in the plot.

The main question that the film constantly asks, over and over again, is whether a black man gets a fair trial from a white jury. Sure they can, but that doesn't mean that the man has to be acquitted in order for the trial to be fair. This film, however, doesn't seem to think so. Besides that, there several gaping holes in the plot used for conveniences. For example, there is an unknown character called Mickey Mouse, who is a member of the Klan, and, for reasons unknown, is helping the members of the defense team escape from serious dangers of the other members of the Klan. After Bullock is kidnapped by Sutherland and company, and left for dead in the wilderness, this unknown person comes and saves her---and we NEVER find out who he is and why he is helping out the people he should be terrorizing.

And speaking of the Sutherland character's reign of terror, it's amazing how witless the police and the Bullock character are in stopping him throughout the film. There's a scene when Sutherland becomes a sniper from a building across the street from the courthouse and tries to shoot Jake as he comes out, shooting one of the guards instead. Now you'd think since there are dozens of police around, it would be easy to surround and capture the sniper. No such luck. From what we could see, no one seemed to even care that a sniper was still on the loose. Even after Bullock, was rescued by Mickey Mouse, she never, ever mentioned who her kidnapper was, nor was it even questioned. Why was this? Simple. The Sutherland character was needed throughout the film to add continual suspense, although logically, he should have been out of the picture.

Besides Bullock's character, there another thankless character. He is Jake's assistant played by Oliver Platt. There seems to be one reason for his character to be in the movie--to supply a number of one-liners for the audience. In my opinion, one-liners show a major weakness in "serious" films when used. It demonstrates that the filmmakers are not confident that the story and dialogue alone are enough to keep the audience's attention, and so use them to make the audience laugh to reassure everyone that they are watching an entertaining film.

But enough of the film's many minor problems. What about the film's message here? It is clear that Carl is indeed guilty of murder. We saw how he planned for hours to murder the men who raped his daughter. The lawyers argue that it was temporary insanity, etc that caused him to kill. In desperation, Jake asks the jury to close their eyes as he recounts the rape in detail as part of his closing arguement. After describing everything that took place, he adds on one final line..."The girl is white". We then see members of the jury with tears in their eyes.

In the very next scene, a girl comes out yelling "He's free! He's free!". Wait a minute! Do juries base their verdicts on their emotions or on the facts? Most of all, why weren't there any scenes that showed the jury deliberating and what they were really thinking after their emotions worn off. I'll tell you why. They couldn't show the delibertion because NO JURY could acquit a man of such a crime, no matter how much the defense's closing arguements touched their hearts. What is the message? That someone is justified in killing if it is a form of revenge for a previous crime done to them?

This film should have had the courage to say that murder is NOT OK in this situation, because in reality, there would not be an acquittal. But since dollars were at stake, the filmmakers were more concerned about sparing the audiences' feelings than they were about presenting a responsible message. If people start killing as a form of revenge, the makers of this film should be held responsible. What a socially irresponsible film this is!


This movie endorses self-justice! It grants freedom to a black man who killed the men who raped his daughter and in the end he gets of scat-free! Despicable enough as this may be, there is also adultery in this film. The Connaughey character has the hots for the Bullock character and the film has some of those stereotypes of trial films (like the important news brought to the court in the nick of time)that make every aesthetically demanding film-goer such as me sick! I really cannot believe that someone liked this junk. It is a film so bad and holding up false ideals that I am unable to put my critic in an eloquently pleasing way. When will the American people wake up and find out that they are being manipulated 24/7 by films like these that turn reality into some BS where there is justice for all if only they take it into their hands. This cowboy attitude just makes me sick and in my eyes it represents everything that is wrong with America!


Regardless of whether the predominant social message of this film - that vigilante justice is acceptable - is justifiable, I was more insulted by McConaughey's closing statement. In a courtroom drama, the closing statement of the defence attorney is pretty much the crux of the film, and when the issue is as difficult to resolve as this one, the statement is really being delivered to the audience as well as the jury. This basically implies that the audience consider the rape of a white girl to be a more horrific crime than the rape of a black girl. I for one find this very insulting. As for the rest, I found the acting reasonable, with the exception of Sandra Bullock, who seems to be playing her usual bubbly self (doesn't really work in a courtroom drama), but what's the point when the film's message is as poor as this one. It tells you that vigilante justice is fine, and accuses you of racism if you disagree.


So many great actors, so little worth watching. But with a script that misses so much of what made the book special, I don't hold it against anyone on screen. Though flawed, the book was one of Grisham's only that I truly liked, especially how it captured the flavor of a deep south small town, a slightly different world to a coastal urbanite such as myself. I also loved the matter-of-factness, naturalness of what occurs in the book. In the movie characters are given a "nobility" of personality that seemed so stilted. The villains and foils are flat and 1 dimensional. But as with so much of Joel Schumacher's work, genuineness and authenticity are conspicuously absent, and every point must be delivered via sledgehammer to the midsection. So preachy, stilted, and superficial about so horrendous a tragedy, I wish someone would do a remake and get the story a little more right.


Chip Foose is an absolute genius and the end result of the projects are truly amazing. The co-hosts do a good job. I particularly enjoy watching the "project" come together. The end results are much better than when they came off the assembly line what with the mechanical and cosmetic advances of today. However, I do get annoyed somewhat at the fact the "projects" seem to be the property of the already rich and/or famous. It's too bad the ones getting overhauled can afford the undertaking. Let's see now, Vince Neill of Motley Crew gets a car make over for his buddy. Hello! If he (Neill) were a true friend he would have paid to have his friend's car restored. What a joke! Another episode shows a middle aged seemingly well-to-do gal getting her '56 caddy named Betsy done. The husband of 30+ years was behind it all. The couple looked like money was not in short supply. What a shame. I guess the lunch pail guys like me will have to save for the day that will never come. I happen to own a '53 Ford project Chip. Will somebody pick me?


I have just wasted my Saturday night watching this crap! I saw the names of Chris Noth (Mr. Big, from "Sex & the City"), Robert Patrick (from "X-Files"), the decadent Elliot Gould, Colm Meaney and Mercedes Ruehl on the credit; a very reasonable IMDb Rating (5,6); and many good reviews in IMDb. For my total surprise, the film is horrible: the characters are badly constructed; the story tries to be funny, but it is totally silly; the character of Mercedes Ruehl is amazingly stupid for a professor of Princeton. So, I decided to investigate the credibility of the good reviews, and I found that most of them are made by IMDb Users with only review, therefore relatives or friends of the cast and crew, or people hired to promote this garbage. My vote is three.

Title (Brazil): "Sem Retorno" ("Without Return")


Could someone please explain to me the reason for making this movie? Sad is about all I can say; this movie took absolutely no direction and wound up with me shaking my head. What an awful waste of two hours. Noth should be ashamed of himself for taking money for this piece of garbage.


This started out slow, then got worse. The best parts of this were all seen in the previews.

Bad Apple has the feel of a pilot - if that's the case TNT should save their money.


As a writing teacher, there are two ending I never allow my students to use: "Then I woke up" and "Then I Got Run Over by a Truck." I am now going to add, "Then I got a bump on the head." I feel it's utterly unfair to use these tricks to cover up a lack of imagination. The whole issue of transmigration could have been handled with some intelligence and craft, yet, in this film, they either couldn't or wouldn't do that. I'm not saying it's totally worthless, but it is so predictable in its progress, except for the stupid ending. There are even gangsters who go to the police to get help from this guy. They should have done him in immediately. It's just a forgettable, borderline horror/sci fi film, with nothing new to offer.


"A young man, recently engaged to be married, is the victim of a traffic accident and dies as a result of his injuries. His father, desperate to revive his son, agrees to let a scientist friend try his experimental soul transmigration process to save him. After the young man returns to life, the father and fiancée notice a dark and violent change in the young man's behavior, leading them to believe something went horribly wrong in the revival process," according to the DVD sleeve's synopsis.

At one point, Edward Norris (as Philip Bennett) is asked, "What do you think this is, Boys Town?" Mr. Norris should know, since he was in "Boys Town". "The Man with Two Lives " is more like "Black Friday" minus Karloff and Lugosi. You do the math. This film might have been a contender, with a re-worked script; it does feature an intriguing final act. After a tepid "shoot out", hang in for the drama to pick up with a well-played scene between star Norris and pursuing detective Addison Richards (as George Bradley).

**** The Man with Two Lives (1942) Phil Rosen ~ Edward Norris, Eleanor Lawson, Addison Richards


"Black Friday" did this plot so much better, which is why it is remembered and "The Man With Two Lives" is just a forgotten potboiler. "Shed No Tears" was it's working title and it would have been a better one as he was a thoroughly evil character for most of the film.

Philip Bennett is newly engaged when he is involved in a traffic accident. Dr. Clark (Edward Keene) has been involved in some experimental operations on animals - bringing them back from the dead. His colleagues urge him to try his operation on Phillip, who has died. As he is operating , a dangerous criminal, Wolf Panino, is going to the electric chair and trans migration of the soul occurs. When Phillip awakes from the operation, he has the soul of Panino. He is a changed person, he is rude to his family and starts to hang around Panino's old haunts. He takes over Wolf's old gang - going by the name of Philip Bennett, he also romance's Wolf's former girlfriend - who smells a rat. Bennett, as Wolf, is determined to even up scores and starts to eliminate his enemies.Bodies pile up, including the girlfriend and a policeman, then his own family begins to fall victim.

But - I HATE those "bad dream" movies - you always feel let down. This film would have been better if he had stayed in character as Panino and had a final shoot out. Eleanor, his fiancée, would have ended up sadder but wiser with his brother.

Edward Norris, the star, had a big career mostly in B movies.

Not really recommended.