I looked forward to spending part of my Independence Day weekend watching a good film about Jefferson. This film was not it. It was rather long, drawn out, dull and unbalanced. Too much time was spent exploring Jefferson's relationship with Cosway and not enough time was spent on his relationship with Sally Hemmings. The lady who played Sally, Thandie Newton, was absolutely awful. Her acting was so bad it was like watching an A1 airhead trying to recite Shakespeare. Her constant whining voice grated the nerves! Nolte's accent made Jefferson sound like an ignorant man, rather than a genius. Jefferson's relationship with his daughters and their feelings on slavery was also underdeveloped, yet his eldest daughter's rebellion (Patsy)is a key event late in the film. The film was too long and the script lacked energy and excitement. On the positive side, the costumes were quite beautiful, and Greta Scacchi played the part of Cosway well. If you want to watch a film about the revolutionary era and/or Jefferson, then watch 1776, it's much better than Jefferson in Paris.


Even though this film's trailer and poster imply that Sally Hemmings was an important character, I might not have been as shocked to discover she was just a minor (and I do mean Minor) character if this movie was suppose to being told by Sally's very own family! I mean if you are going to tell the story of a member of your family that has been ignored by history, would you really tell it with the man who relegated her to obscurity at the main character? His other lover (who happens to be white) as the actual love interest? I know I wouldn't! I am as pale as they come and normally a big fan of Merchent~Ivory flicks, but I couldn't stomach this film's treatment of poor Sally Hemmings.


We sought out this hard-to-find VHS after watching two excellent Merchant-Ivory pictures back to back. Knowing it was an instant box office failure, a failure as a rental, I thought it might be worth seeing anyway based on M-I's reputation. Too bad! Nine years ago, it was very much a Liberal Agenda objective to trash the Founding Fathers and indeed they had some success in eradicating the Founding Fathers from many American classrooms including, for example, New Jersey; whose eradication of our great founders quickly ended when the Washington Times shone the spotlight of truth into the NJ School Board and their subversive deed. A small part of this was headlining the alleged Sally Hemmings-Thomas Jefferson connection, disregarding the inconvenient DNA findings which failed to support the wacky left's agenda. Never mind! They got James Ellis, an author of dubious reputation, to put it in a book, and Columbia University sealed the deal by giving Ellis a Pulitzer.

As to Jefferson in Paris, the Liberal Agenda spin begins in the opening scene wherein James Earl Jones is claiming to be the son of Jefferson. The spin simply continues in flashback mode to Paris. The unmistakable truth is that even if a person assumes the lie is true the Hemmings allegation would be an insignificant detail into the larger matter of Jefferson's prolonged and vital diplomatic mission to Paris (as well as to the Netherlands where he secured crucial financial backing for America when our infant nation was without funds).

Besides the Liberal Spin Job, there is nothing else of interest in this drab and tortuously dull movie. Some of the other history is indeed accurate --- adding credence to frame the lie --- but this movie takes one of the most interesting moments in American history and reduces it to a remedy for insomnia.

Please do not ask me why Liberals set out to trash the Founding Fathers, because I don't waste time explaining the acts of such people. Don't ask them either; they usually respond to such questions with the same answer: "SHUT UP!"


Hellboy revolves around classic comic book/action/superhero genre story lines. Essentially Hellboy is a kind of demon who has found his way on earth. He is brought up from a child by a priest and within a government society and has chosen to protect the people of earth from the supernatural, rather then be a menace (the normal career route for a demon).

The set up of the story involves creative uses of history, combining Nazi experiments with the occult. It's preposterous, but so is the whole idea of a demon roaming the streets. I find the explanations of the characters, who they are and how they came to be very well handled. The sequences are to the point and very entertaining. In fact the opening is the best part of the film, therein lays the problem.

Essentially Del Toro who both writes and directs this piece bottles it. The film is absent of all tension or any major conflict. Hellboy is essentially established as invincible within the first act and so the rest of the film comprises of scenes in which any conflict is automatically rather crass because we know inevitably Hellboy will be OK and the bad guy will die. I hear you cry that this is the case for any action/hero film. Well yes it is, but once we are drawn into a well made action film we can't help but feel the hero may die. Die Hard works because John Mclane looks likely to die at all parts. He escapes death by the slimmest of margins. The stakes are raised as his wife is also in danger etc etc Terminator and Terminator two work because in both cases the villain is far superior than the hero. The threat and tension is constant.

Some of the other major weaknesses are: Del Toro is also guilty of employing deus ex machina. Characters generally disappear and reappear as their skills are needed within the story. The villain is featured in maybe three scenes. He has no motives. Turns up unexpectedly and inexplicably. In the one scene Hellboy looks to be up against a real threat (groups of monsters) a character unleashes her abilities - the screen fades to white and inexplicably the monsters are dead but everybody else lives. A minor character established in an irritating and undeveloped love story becomes the key to the conclusion of the film. Her character is so thin, the relationship so undeveloped. It is clear she is nothing more than a prop of sorts to push the plot along and to make it all make sense. I don't want to ruin the ending of the film but essentially a character that is dead is miraculously and unbelievably brought back to life.

The film suffers from poor dialogue and one liners that just aren't smart or funny. After a while it all starts to grate.

What's more Del Toro blows the action scenes with some uninspired visuals. And whoever made the creative decision to make hellboy's primary weapon a gun instead of his clunking arm should be fired. Essentially the use of the gun weakens the concept of the film, degrading the fights to nothing more than a one sided shoot out

The few positives include: The cinematography is very good. At all times a sense of mood is established by the dark lighting and the darker colour palette. As well as the use of interesting locations. Yet perhaps it is all a bit samey as well.

The use of cgi and Fx is well done. Never do we get an over load. When effects are used they are used well and the sense of realism is kept. Rather similar to how Nolan used FX in batman. I much prefer this method to the overtop effects we often see.

All in all this is a pretty poor film. The real shame is that (despite not reading the comics) I found the film wasted a lot of potential. Hellboy as a character has a lot of instantly apparent fascinating dimensions which are completely unexplored. The film has watch-ability, in the sense that if it comes on TV and nothing else is on it might be worth a viewing. But in any other situation I wouldn't bother with it.


Where do we start with an offering like this? I nearly said film but that would be going a step too far. The only thing hellish about this film is that it is certainly a marriage made in hell, between nothing and nonsense, baloney and balderdash. These films should carry a physiological health warning so as not to damage one's spirit to the point where one might believe that all good film makers have left the planet and their resources have been handed to the dunderheads who have make this classic piece of trite garbage just like it's sister in arms "League of Extraordinary Twaddle". They are neither science fiction nor fact, entertaining nor thought provoking, humorous nor weighty but lay in a twilight zone devoid of any and all accoutrements that entice people to give up their valuable time, sit in a darkened room and generally be more enlightened, enlivened or happy at the end of it. If we could award "Turkey" points for films like this, this would be a turnip, as we would gone through the turkey, ham, potatoes, sprouts, gravy and all other embellishments before reaching rock bottom.


The Book gets 10 out of 10 stars...

PROBABLY CONTAINS SPOILERS OF BOTH THE BOOK AND THE MOVIE!!!

If you've never read Geoffrey Household's Rogue Male, the source material for Man Hunt, you'll likely enjoy Fritz Lang's treatment of the story. On the other hand, if you're in my camp and have practically memorized the book, the movie will be a crashing disappointment. I'll assume you've already read a synopsis of the story, and proceed to my complaints. Household's little novel is one of the all-time great suspense classics, taut and spare, with only a bare handful of characters to propel the action. Fritz Lang and his screen writer Dudley Nichols feel the need to throw in the protagonist's brother and a sympathetic floozy, the latter of which reduces the depth of the story by injecting an extrinsic motivation into the screenplay where the novel needed none. In fact, the true climax of the book was not the nameless narrator's escape from his underground lair, but rather his self-acceptance of his true motive for going on his hunt in the first place. And that's another thing: if David Fincher and Quentin Tarantino can get us all the way through Fight Club and Kill Bill 1 without revealing the names of their respective protagonists, why can't Lang? "Thorndyke?" What hat did they pull that out of? Which brings me to my bitterest complaint: Household's hunter is so quintessentially British,he would bleed a Union Jack if you cut him. But Walter Pigeon, who plays him, is Canadian! He can barely sustain the accent, which is only slightly deeper and more convincing that Kevin Costner's in Robin Hood. He looked about right in the role, and was a fine actor for the 1940s,but as Rogue Male's reluctant hero? Let's look to the Sceptered Isle itself for a more convincing version. Remake soon with subtlety and with, please! I'll direct it for free


I am assuming that the rave reviews on this page were from people who have never read the book - Unfortunately for those of us who love the text, Hollywood outdid itself on destroying this one.

I am not sure where on earth the woman love-interest came from, except that she replaced the cat, nor why our Rogue Male acquired a helpful family back in Blighty - In fact the vast majority of the book has been cut out and replaced with your standard cruddy love story. The ambiguity about which world leader was in his sights was removed completely and our Rogue was given a name (neither of these appeared until the second book).

I gave it a 2 rather than a 1 simply because of the wonderfully bad cockney accents. Joan Bennett outdoes Dick Van Dyke in Mary Poppins by miles and this goes a tiny way towards saving it.

Ah well - Brits should probably avoid this. Trust me :)


Disappointing film with Walter Pidgeon as a hunter who goes to Germany to assassinate Hitler. When he is discovered, he is coerced into signing a document stating that he acted on orders from England. His refusal to sign the document brings us to the plot of the film.

Pidgeon is pursued back to England by the evil George Sanders and his cohort, John Carradine, who speaks little, but is again as always, the embodiment of wickedness personified.

Along the way of being pursued, Pidgeon meets up with Joan Bennett, the latter displaying a wonderful cockney accent.

The story gets bogged down somewhat as love develops between the two, but again as we approach World War 11, realism becomes the object of the day.

The near-ending scene in the cave between Sanders and Pidgeon is nicely realized but we know where that arrow is going to go to.

Very interesting that while Pidgeon is fleeing Nazi Germany, he meets up again with a young Roddy McDowall, one of Pidgeon's many co-stars that same year in the memorable "How Green Was My Valley." How green was "Man Hunt?"


Essentially a undistinguished B-movie that mysteriously is directed by one of the golden era's major talents, Fritz Lang. Even with the stellar names of Lang, Walter Pidgeon, Joan Bennett and George Sanders, be prepared for a ludicrous storyline, bad acting, patently phony sets and miscasting. For transparency sake, I have to admit I am an ardent non-admirer of Walter Pidgeon, who was lucky to have found a niche at the artificial dream-factory of MGM, and somehow worked in secondary roles, supporting Greer Garson and others. He is wildly miscast, acting in a chipper, '30s-Ray Milland madcap comedy tone, in a role where his life is in danger, and he is in hiding. Joan Bennett's cockney accent is excessive, but her lacquered hair, perfect makeup and classy outfit belies a street-wise Cockney slum-girl. George Sanders is incapable of bad acting, but disappears after the preposterous opening finds Pidgeon somehow pretending to shoot Adolph Hitler. Surprising for Fritz Lang is the unevenness of tone. I found the film wavered uneasily between occasional moments of suspense-thriller surrounded by light-hearted comedic interplay. Hitchcock totally reversed the ratio, using comic relief to occasionally pace the suspense. There is a reason this film is unknown. It didn't serve or propel anybody's career or reputation, and is forgotten because it's a surprisingly bad film from such a pedigreed group.


Preposterous twaddle executed in a bewilderingly amateurish and inept way -- or perhaps several since the incredible lack of continuity, tone, realism, plausibility, suspense, and much more combine with Walter Pidgeon's bovine attempts at charm to produce a cinema curiosity to rank with some of Fritz Lang's other stupendous failures. (I thought the German ambassador was actually played by Lang but apparently not -- they could have been twins.) If you cannot predict the ending from several timezones away, you are not actually alive.

I was eagerly awaiting this DVD and was totally surprised and disappointed by such dire crap (even with George Sanders and John Carradine -- maybe I can wash my mind out by watching Viaggio in Italia instead and for the umpteenth time).

Anyone want a DVD used once? (There may be a movie to be made about the making of this atrocious film and how so many talented people could be wasted so completely.)


A pig-tailed Linnea Quigley drinks milk, strips and kills her sister and her sister's boyfriend after they have sex. She goes to an asylum, makes a best friend out of Amy (Karen Russell) and the two blackmail their way out of a mental institution by sleeping with their psychologists (one is played by "Carol Burnett Show" regular Lyle Waggoner). On the outside, these two man-hating mafia princesses (!) stop taking their medication and invite six slimeball ex-boyfriends over to their large country home for a party where they're systematically slaughtered in very gory ways by a gloved, leather-clad mystery killer.

The hideous David Barton FX are so bloody, but so unrealistic that they take on a sort-of surrealistic quality. Same goes for the movie. The dialogue is so strange and stilted, the film so ineptly paced and edited and the acting so other-worldly, you'll start to doubt your own sanity. This film actually attempts to have a plot and three-dimensional characters, but it's all so poorly handled it's almost like what would happen if Ed Wood did a rewrite of an Ingmar Bergman script! And like any good Bergman film, this has a mature moral to abide by--Any good party needs a proper guy/girl "ratio," so there will be enough chicks to "tickle your lizard." See it for yourself... or don't!

Linnea (the only reason I was even interested in watching this to begin with) is very amusing in this one, has a lot more dialogue than usual and has several eye-popping nude scenes. Unfortunately, she also completely disappears from the final third of this film and the movie suffers because of it.

Score: 3 out of 10


This movie is a bad movie. But after watching an endless series of bad horror movies, I can say that it is a little different from many I have seen. Not in the plot, which is a fairly regular slasher story, but more the way the scenes are cut. Murder Weapon gives us a lot of inane dialogue scenes, but they go on for a lot longer than in most movies of this type. Because of this some of the victims seem slightly less like cardboard cut-outs. Just slightly. I had a difficult time figuring out exactly what was happening at the beginning and kept wondering if certain events were dream sequences. My favorite scene is when two guys are on the run from the killer and take refuge in a car. In the glove compartment, they find a handgun. "Thank you, God!" one of them happily exclaims. That guy's head suddenly looks like a mannequin's head, and it went on for just enough time for me to wonder, "What is that? Where is that mannequin in relation to the two guys in the car?" Then BOOM! The head explodes and I figured out that it was supposed to be one of the guys in the car getting his head shot off with a shotgun. I love that scene, but the movie is a very bad movie. 3/10.


I saw this movie years about 8 years ago when it first came out, and the only memories that I have about it are : 1. That it was awful. 2. That in one scene Linnea Quigley applies suntan lotion to her arms and legs repeatedly for about 15 minutes straight (it seemed that long anyways). 3. One scene where a character gets a sledgehammer rammed into his head. In this scene, when the hammer connects, the head smashes like glass. It's quite bad.


Anyone who knows anything about evolution wouldn't even need to see the film to say "fake". "it's never been disproved" also is a weak argument. Saying the universe was created by a giant hippo cannot be disproved. Although, to be fair, it does seem like the only people who do believe are the same people who open email attachments from people they don't know or give their bank details to a dude in Zambia. No bones of any primates are have been found in the United States or Canada. There is also a good reason why legitimate scientists don't bother studying this. The same argument goes for the Loch Ness monster, ghosts and god.


Hilariously inept - like "She Wore A Yellow Ribbon" remade by five-year-olds.

Spoilers ahead: Despite its title, and the high bodycount, "Slaughter Trail" is in fact a musical with Injun battles instead of dance numbers.

If you ever wondered what Ed Wood might have done with a B-movie budget, this film should answer your question. Some decisions may have been bad only in retrospect, such as filming in the short-lived Cinecolor process, which resulted in faces changing hue within the same shot. But there was definitely some ill-advised skimping on the film's main set, a cavalry fort that seems to be partly a Norman castle.

Terry Gilkyson, who later wrote the 'The Bare Necessities' for Disney's "The Jungle Book", supplies a score full of original ditties which would have been wonderful for a cartoon but which fit Western action like a fuzzy slipper stuck in a stirrup. One song tells how "horse hooves pound, and their melody sounds, like the hoofbeat serenade"...during a dead-serious scene of a cavalry patrol. Other songs literally narrate the story shot by shot, introducing characters, describing their moods and gestures - as they happen on screen - and even stop to advertise the Cinecolor process(!)

The script sends ferocious Navajos on the warpath to avenge the killing of two of their band by an outlaw trio. By the end of the film, what looks like a hundred Navajos and cavalrymen have bitten the dust (thanks to repeated footage of the same characters dying over and over.) But the chief is satisfied once he sees the trio of badguys have been slain. As the singer helpfully informs those of us who weren't paying attention, the Navajos ride away, their battle called off. The cavalry captain, surrounded by the corpses of his fallen comrades, cheerily waves his appreciation.

The direction could most charitably be described as wooden, or more to the point, Wood-en. Navajos are consistently shot off their horses in pairs -- never just one. Virtually every red man on foot dies by throwing his hands in the air and keeling over. The film also employs the most cautious stuntmen in Hollywood, who crouch before dropping off a one-story roof (and still fail to stick the landing) or turn to look behind them as they slide, "dead", down a rocky slope.

The star is Brian Donlevy, who surely deserves an Oscar for not blushing. After the endless final battle scene -- "climax" is scarcely the word -- he scans a list of the dozens of his troopers killed, and shrugs, "It could've been a LOT worse." Trooper Andy Devine gets to sing and robber/murderer Gig Young laughs at Andy's antics...which leads a character who had been held up by masked bandits to rat Gig out: "I'd know that laugh anywhere!"

And lest anyone forget just what a nasty piece of work Howard Hughes could be, recall that as head of RKO, Hughes was first in line to blacklist original star Howard Da Silva when HUAC denounced him. It would take Hughes another six years to finish running that once-celebrated studio into the ground, but it didn't help things when he insisted on reshooting Da Silva's every scene for this film, substituting Donlevy.

It was nearly a decade before Da Silva was able to work in Hollywood again. But all things considered, for getting him out of "Slaughter Trail", he should have sent Hughes a thank-you note.


Slaughter Trail is a B western with some grand pretensions. But it's come down in Hollywood history for a most ignominious reason.

Watching this film with it's musical score which can only be described as overbearing, I have a feeling what Howard Hughes was trying to do is recruit a singing cowboy for RKO films. They already had Tim Holt who was as reliable a B picture cowboy hero there ever was, but he was not a singer. I guess Hughes saw what money Herbert J. Yates was raking in with Roy Rogers over at Republic and decided he'd get one as well.

So Terry Gilkyson who was a very good performer and much better song writer got recruited and sang some of his material which was not his best and worse, looked like they were shoehorned into the picture. But worse than that, there's this annoying chorus which sang a lot of the story and frankly overwhelmed the actors, extras, even the horses. Needless to say Terry never got to be a singing cowboy. But he did write such classics as The Bare Necessities and Dean Martin's great hit, Memories are Made of This.

The plot concerns an inside woman on a stagecoach jewel robbery. That's right, the outlaws who are Gig Young, Myron Healey, and Ken Koutnik plant Virginia Grey in the coach as a passenger which they receive word is carrying some valuable jewels.

It's a great act Grey and Young pull off. Young takes her away from the coach to presumably a fate worse than death and they do properly act out the scene within earshot of the passengers, but what he does is slip her the swag. Last place the authorities might look, if she doesn't run off with it.

But when they flee the robbery it's on tired horses so they stop at a cabin to take some replacement mounts and shoot three Navajos who object. That puts the Navajos back on the warpath, didn't help that one of the casualties was Chief Ric Roman's brother.

That's the situation that Captain Brian Donlevy at the fort has to deal with when the coach and the outlaws arrive there for protection. How it all works out is predictable, but in a gaudy sort of overproduced way.

In fact that's the problem with Slaughter Trail. It's a simple no frills B western that got souped up into something almost grotesque.

But the real reason Slaughter Trail entered into history is that this film apparently marks the official beginning of the blacklist. Originally Howard DaSilva was to play Donlevy's part and may have in fact completed his scenes, when Howard Hughes officially fired him for Communist sympathies. His scenes were completely re-shot with Brian Donlevy in the lead.

Considering what a fiasco this film turned into, I'm not sure whether Donlevy or DaSilva ought to have thanked Hughes or kicked him in his private preserve.


Intriguing premise should have been a 20 minute short. That's how long it would take his biological parents to think, "Hmm, we lost one son (and never found him) who is about his age, and he looks like our remaining son. Oh, yes, and he's a runaway. Hmm." But no, this is the most clueless family in history. And the conclusion, while trying to jerk tears, manages only to induce more groans of disbelief.


Pretty twisted Horror film, that has a few good moments here and there, with some creepy Blood transfusion scenes, however it's just too dull for it's own good. All the characters are OK, and the story while had a lot of potential is rather dull, however the blood transfusion scenes looked frighteningly real, and as a result they were extremely disturbing. It's well made and decently written, and it started out really interesting, but it just couldn't keep up the pace, plus I found the ending to be disappointing. Linnea Quigley has no more then a very small role in this so, I was also disappointed about that, and Stephen Knight does a good job as the lead, as he was pretty twisted, plus I got this in a DVD Horror set called A Taste Of Evil, along with a bunch of other Horror films. There is lots of blood,however it's not all that gory, and for it's low budget it was pretty well done, however as I said it just couldn't sustain it's interest. This is a pretty twisted Horror film, that has a few good moments here and there, with some creepy blood transfusion scenes, however it's just too dull for it's own good, I would pass,but I guess it's worth a watch if you have nothing better to do. The Direction is OK. Elly Kenner&Norman Thaddeus Vane do an OK job here with decent camera work, and doing a good job on it's low budget, however the pace is too inconsistent for my liking. The Acting is actually alright. Stephen Knight is great as the lead, he was creepy, twisted, sick, and gave a very creepy performance, the most creepy thing about it though was he seemed like a normal person. Linnea Quigley did well in her small role. Christopher McDonald is OK I guess sin his short time. Rest of the cast are OK as well. Overall I would pass, but I guess it's worth a watch if you have nothing absolutely better to do. *1/2 out of 5


During filming, was Vanessa Redgrave taking mogadon? It was like she was reading from an autocue. I've seen more life in a wooden spoon. Or perhaps that was all part of the character? whatever, it was very very annoying, I kept wanting to shake the screen to hurry her up. I read the book a long time ago & didn't like much about it except that Septimus's descent into madness was very well done - but I don't think Rupert Graves showed this very well, his acting was all on the surface. The connection between his life and Clarissa's is not very well done either but I suspect the attempt is to show the sacrifice soldiers made to enable people like Clarissa to continue their vapid lives. The film is very bitty and has no real unity to it. Hated it.


One of the most boring,pointless movies I have ever seen. The title character is self-centered, self-absorbed and wholly distasteful. The secondary plot line is incomprehensible and its relation to the primary plot line is mystifying. Hated it.


I usually like period films but this one just seemed to drag and drag. I'd perk up during Rupert Graves' scenes, but Vanessa Redgrave just put me to sleep.

I was disappointed in the film. It lacked a little "punch" at the end that I'd hoped it would have.


Can you say "Boring" with a capital B! It's slower than watching grass grow! It's more boring than watching paint dry! You'll sleep right through it.....we all did.....don't do it...you'll regret it!


I couldn't believe this was the same director as Antonia's Line.

This film has it all, a boring plot, disjointed flashbacks, a subplot that has nothing to do with the main plot what so ever, and totally uninteresting characters. It was painful to watch. Soooo, painful.


I kept waiting for the film to move me, inspire me, shock me, sadden me in some way but it stirred none of my emotions. It just meandered along to the end. None of the characters seemed very unique or complex, they just seemed like actors reciting their lines. I think it could have been a better movie if the characters expressed more emotion. The only one who did and was believable was the veteran and he probably committed suicide just to get out of the movie as soon as he could. It was a waste of talent, film, their time, and mine. If there is a message or meaning or genius in this story, it certainly is well-hidden or I am very dense, which I doubt.


Since I was just finishing the book, `Mrs. Dalloway' by Virginia Woolf, I was excited to see that it was on one of the movie channels last weekend. What I encountered, however, is a film that was boring, incomprehensible and non-sensical. One cannot entirely blame the film, it tried the best it could with the material it had, but when the source material is Virginia Woolf, and is almost entirely written in stream-of-conscience style with extended periods of internalizing and little actual dialogue, one would certainly think that there shouldn't be a film made from it just because a film can be made from it.

Vanessa Redgrave, who plays the title character, does not deserve any blame for the failure of this film, nor do any of the other actors. It is just simply a film that could not intelligibly be made from the story that Woolfe wrote, and should not have even been attempted. Don't watch the movie, read the book.

--Shelly


In the 1940s, Veronica Lake made a meteoric rise to film stardom, thanks to her sultry beauty and, her highly exploited "peekaboo" hairstyle. She starred opposite big names like Alan Ladd and Fredric March, scoring screen successes in films like "This Gun For Hire" and "I Married A Witch". She held her own with female stars as well, and she surprised even her detractors with her performance as a bitter navy nurse in "So Proudly We Hail". But changing times and her own failings caught up with her, and by the end of the decade, her heyday was over. With two unsuccessful marriages behind her (and two more in her future) Veronica headed for New York City, where she made occasional television and summer stock appearances before dropping completely out of sight. It was briefly big news when she was found working as a barmaid in a second rate hotel in the early sixties. But by now, her longtime alcoholism and years of hard living had robbed her of her looks. Without them, public interest in her soon faded again. She did return to the stage in assorted vehicles, but her success was minimal. Eventually, she relocated to Miami, Florida, where she lived in relative obscurity. In 1966 she went to Canada for a part in an obscure movie called "Footsteps In The Snow" which had no U.S. release. The following year, she was discovered by some industrial filmmakers who had long wanted to produce a commercial feature. They approached her to star in their film "Time Is Terror" and convinced her to invest in the project. As one author put it, "If ever a movie queen suffered a terminal comedown, this was it". Surrounded by amateur performers and pathetic production values, she failed even to rise to a minimal level in this Miami, Florida shot quickie. Looking utterly ordinary in long shots, and luridly aged in close-ups, poor Veronica didn't act so much as walk through her part. As a deranged doctor, who has hit upon a successful youth restoration formula, using flesh-eating maggots!, she looks both bored and confused, her most unintentionally hilarious moment coming when she is forced to ad-lib while she struggles gamefully to don a pair of rubber gloves. The supporting cast is no help at all, merely advancing the plot by talking it to death. Director Brad Grinter apparently only required the actors to move while the camera was pointed at them, no need for anything resembling entertainment (There is, admittedly, one unintentionally hilarious scene involving a Private Detective/Nurse and a corpse in a wheelchair that predates ''Weekend At Bernie's'' by almost 20 years.) According to Veronica herself, the film was shelved for three years because no master shots were filmed. But in 1970, the production company scraped it together, changed the title to "Flesh Feast", and released it to cash in on Lake's just published biography. And, because former leading ladies such as Bette Davis, Joan Crawford and Olivia De Havilland had unexpectedly revived their careers in horror movies, this travesty was promoted as Veronica's "comeback film". This seems a strange course of action for the filmmakers to pursue, though, because it's unlikely that the (young) audience for a horror film of this quality either knew or cared who Veronica Lake was. As expected, it did nothing for Veronica's career, and she died in poverty, three years later. A previous reviewer cites a scene in which the female detective working undercover as a nurse in the doctor's laboratory (overseeing the theft of bodies from a nearby morgue) enlists the help of a multi-talented chauffeur to cut up the body parts. "Poor Mrs. Lustig," she sighs, "I hope she doesn't mind leaving her body to science." "Try not to think about it," advises the chauffeur, sawing away. "I guess you are right, Hans." concludes the detective/nurse, "What is done is done." What a sad end to the career of a still fondly remembered star.


Once upon a time, way back in the 1940's, there lived an actress named Veronica Lake. A beautiful, talented young woman who was once in high demand for many big-budget, Hollywood pictures. Fast Forward to the late 1960's, age, alcoholism, and all-around bad luck has tarnished everyones favorite actress. Now a hasbeen, Miss Lake decides the time has come to follow in the foot steps of her peers(?), Joan Crawford, and Bette Davis, and fall back on good ol' reliable Horror. But Flesh Feast? Really? She couldn't have possibly been that washed up. To put it delicately, Flesh Feast is a lifeless pile garbage, possibly one of the top 5 worst films I've ever seen, and I've seen them all. Lake plays a scientist, who is plotting, with Nazi's, to bring Hitler back to life, with youth restoration experiments involving maggots, that's right, maggots. Unless you're a huge fan of Heather Hughes, run away and never look back!!

I know very little about this Veronica Lake person, as well as 40's flicks, but to think that such a successful career actually became that dismal, is actually pretty sad. Flesh Feast is almost impossible to get through, and by almost, I mean absolutely. Directed by Brad Grinter, director of Nudist Camp pictures, and the man who, coincidentally brought us the greatest B-movie ever made, Blood Freak, just a couple years later. One has to wonder, is this what Blood Freak would have been like if Grinter hadn't co-directed with Steve Hawkes? If so, then God bless Steve Hawkes. You wouldn't think that a Religious, dope-blood craving, Turkey Monster could be THAT much better than experiments involving Maggots and Hitler, but it really, really is. So forget you ever heard of this one and go find Blood Freak, it's just waiting to entertain you. Fast Forward a couple years later, Veronica Lake dies of Hepititas, broke, and forgotten. The End. I hate you, Flesh Feast. 1/10


Flesh Feast starts at Miami Airport, ace reporter Dan Carter (Harry Kerwin, he is also credited as production designer) phones his mate Ed Casey (Phil Philbin) to let him know that he has just returned from South America where he has been investigating Carl Schuman (Doug Foster) & that he was onto a big story but while still talking on the phone he is stabbed in the back & killed. Schuman meets Dr. Elaine Frederick (Veronica Lake, she also executive produced) who has recently been released from a mental institution, together they discuss their grisly plans. The news of Cater's death has reached Casey & he decides to take the story up himself & do some investigating, well actually he gets his secretary Viginia Day (Marth Mischon) to do most of the investigating & just report back to him, lazy bugger. Virginia informs Casey that they have someone on the inside named Kristine (Heather Hughes) since Dr. Frederick rents her spare rooms out to nurses, Kristine reports back to Casey about Schuman & Dr. Frederick's grotesque youth restoration experiments involving human flesh & specially cultivated maggots...

Co written, co-produced & directed by Brad F. Grinter Flesh Feast is a pretty poor film on all accounts. First lets start with the script by Grinter & Thomas Casey who was also responsible for the cinematography (you get the feeling that most of the cast & crew had more than one job), basically it's terrible. The character's are one dimensional idiots & have no personality, I didn't like anyone in this film. For what it's worth I quite like some of the ideas here, the flesh-eating maggots, the basement laboratory, stealing bodies from a hospital & that unforgettable 'twist' ending that's almost worth sitting through the rest of the film for on it's own. Unfortunately the dialogue is so badly written, stiff & unnatural sounding it's untrue, I mean there is one scene in which a nurse says that they "won't let us out of the house" which is fine except for the fact that she is speaking OUTSIDE in the garden to someone. No thought has been put into the story as no explanation is ever given for why flesh-eating maggots are able to restore youth, in fact at one point near the end when questioned about this very thing Dr. Frederick claims there is no time to explain at that point which to me sounds like the people who wrote this didn't have a clue either! Even at an extremely short 68 minutes long Flesh Feast is very slow & dull, the poor editing doesn't help with scenes & shots lasting for far too long, for example there is a scene in which an Ambulance pulls up outside a Hospital, drives up to the doors, the guy gets out, he walks to the back doors & opens them etc. etc. did we really need to see every single detail? There is also another sequence in which Dr. Frederick enters room & puts some gloves on, then she takes them off walks into the opposite room & puts another pair on! I personally think that Grinter probably didn't shoot enough material so he stretches every scene out as much as he can to make the run time up. I do like that bizarre ending though, I really do. Technically Flesh feast is complete crap, I'm not sure what the budget was on this but it must have been small, very small. Just about the entire film takes place in one house, Dr. Frederick's laboratory consists of a table, some plastic beakers & test tubes, some ancient looking electronic medical equipment & a strange screen with funny colours on it (don't ask). The cinematography is poor, the music sucks & the entire film looks dubbed, badly dubbed too. The exploitation elements are also disappointing, there are a few maggot shots but they don't actually do anything other than wriggle a bit, there is a brief scene where a dead body has it's leg sawn off & a OK looking dismembered corpse & limbs hanging on hooks. The acting is awful from everyone concerned, & I mean really bad which makes the rubbishy dialogue even worse. Do yourself a favour & avoid Flesh Feast, yes there are one or two unintentionally funny moments & that ending is, well unique to say the least but for the most part this is real amateur film-making that quickly becomes painful to watch. I doubt most people will make it through this is one sitting, I can tolerate just about anything but even I considered switching it off. Definitely one to avoid, you'll be pleased you did & if you really have to see it don't say you weren't warned!


***BIG SPOILERS!*** "Flesh Feast" of 1970 is a more than unworthy conclusion to the great Veronica Lake's career. This has the wide reputation of being an awful stinker, and rightly so, I must say. As a huge fan of low-budget Horror/Exploitation, especially from the 70s, I nonetheless chose to watch this, mainly due to the cool camp-looking picture on this site, but after watching it I had to recognize that the picture actually has nothing to do with the film. The picture here on this site is the cover of a DVD collection entitled 'Flesh Feast' containing four films, including Sergio Martino's "Mountain Of The Cannibal God" and Dal Tenney's "I Eat Your Skin". What the collection does not include, however, is this boring turkey. "Flesh Feast" is not only camp and ridiculous, but mostly quite tedious, which is even more pathetic regarding that the film is only 70 minutes long. Also, don't get fooled by the title, the film is not gory at all. Yet it is watchable, if only for its trashiness and, especially, the extremely stupid, but therefore somewhat entertaining ending. The film follows a ridiculous plot about Dr. Elaine Frederick (Veronica Lake), an ingenious female scientist who can somehow rebuild youth with the help of flesh-eating maggots (don't ask how). A bunch of criminals (or terrorists, or whatever), who are paid by a radical political group assign the doctor to restore the youth of a 'mysterious' commander. After an endless hour of nonsensical drivel, it turns out that the mysterious commander is actually Hitler himself. It was quite obvious before, but I still had to burst out laughing because the film's finale was so unbelievably silly and unintentionally hilarious... This is a film that is very inadequate as the last film of a great actress and former beauty queen like Veronika Lake. Except for lake, the performances are ridiculously bad, even for a zero-budget production like this. Bad performances, however, are something I can easily forgive in films like this one. What I can not forgive, though, is extreme boredom. The final five minutes make this watchable for hardcore fans of camp stuff, but I would still recommend to skip it.


The plot here is simple. Country boy, Lem (Farrell) goes to the city to sell the wheat crop, falls in love with a waitress, Kate (Duncan) and marries her, bringing her home to a hostile father and a group of woman-hungry reapers. There are shades of THEY KNEW WHAT THEY WANTED and MICE AND MEN here. The courtship, taking place in two lengthy sequences set in the restaurant, consume the first half hour and are lethargically paced. Lem is so weak he allows his father to mistreat his wife, who is propositioned by Mac (Richard Alexander) , one of the reapers, to come away with him. Duncan and Alexander are the only good things in this tedious potboiler, which lacks the insights and the cinematic beauty we expect from Murnau. Farrell's character has no backbone so we wind up rooting for a "real man" (Mac) to take Kate away from it all. With audience sympathy skewed, the film loses its narrative progression. The father's conversion at film's end is unrealistic and unbelievable, making for a contrived denouement. This film is for fans of the stars and the director only - general audiences need not bother.


...and I Bought A Vampire Motorcycle staggers all over that line like a drunk with his shoelaces tied together. Some 'bad' films are quite enjoyable (like Norman J.Warren's Inseminoid), some 'bad' films are just bad (like Kent Bateman's Headless Eyes), but 'bad' films that try and do the post-modernist thing of being knowingly bad should always be approached with extreme caution. A lot of people think Troma's Terror Firmer is a bad-taste masterpiece, for example, but I'm guessing anyone over the age of nineteen will shrug it off as worthless dreck. Then there's John Carpenter's Dark Star. Yes, it's quaint, and certainly a product of its time, but as a film it's only two notches above worthless. This no-budget British black comedy-horror outing tries to achieve a satirical tone, with its endless references to its fellow shoestring splatter flicks (among them Psychomania, Horror Hospital and pretty much anything by Pete Walker), but due to dismal performances by second-string TV actors (the leading lady looks like Amy Winehouse), a script that appears to have been written on the back of a peeled beermat by two 'lads' with no understanding of how film comedy works, Dean Friedman's (intentionally?) dire elevator-rock soundtrack and production values never rising above mediocre, the net result is a film that can only be laughed AT, rather than WITH. If your idea of whoopee is anthropomorphic turds, Chinese takeaways called Fu King and references to long-forgotten TV ads, you'll enjoy this one, but don't expect too much.


Dreadful! A friend of mine (who obviously thought I had an abysmal sense of humour) recommended this.

It's bobbins. I almost switched it off. It is only my anal desire to not leave things unfinished that prevented me doing so.

This was evidently a British attempt to make a movie with a bunch of also ran TV actors using some lame script from their mate in the business. I struggle to think of anything even approaching the paucity of this movie. Less funny than global warming.

I'm not normally so vehement, but I watched this well over ten years ago and thought that I wasted an hour or so of my life on it is destructive.

Puerile, plot less, useless tosh.

I'd rather eat my feet than watch it again.


After his widower father dies in a horsing accident, young Tom Burlinson (as Jim Craig) is left to manage his Australian "Snowy River" farm, with only wizened, peg-legged prospector Kirk Douglas (as Spur) to help. Times are hard, so Mr. Burlinson goes to work for Mr. Douglas' wealthy, silver-haired brother rancher "Mr. Harrison" (also played by Kirk Douglas). When a big job comes up, the silver-haired (older?) Douglas feels Burlinson is too young and inexperienced to go along; so, Burlinson stays behind, and falls in love with the boss' daughter, Sigrid Thornton (as Jessica Harrison).

The least satisfactory aspect of director George Miller's "The Man from Snowy River" is a weak storyline. Observe, for example, the "Jessica is lost" sequence of events. The damsel gets lost in one of those "freak" storms, while running away. Her worried father rounds up a posses of drunk men to find her, after predicting bad weather. Damsel "Jessica" rolls herself on to the edge of a conveniently appearing cliff. Father and the suddenly sober men don't check Burlinson's farm. Hero Burlinson discovers the damsel. After building a fire, he decides to kiss her.

The "romance" is played too innocently for as obvious an attracted man and woman as Burlinson and Ms. Thornton. To make matters worse, the Douglas brothers have a "dark history" which is revealed before any mystery is built up regarding the matter. The main attraction, herein, is the Australian scenery.

**** The Man from Snowy River (1982) George Miller ~ Tom Burlinson, Kirk Douglas, Sigrid Thornton


A tedious yawn of a film that retains nothing of the zing and raciness of its predecessor, "Gold Diggers of 1933." The Production Code was firmly in place by the time of this film's release, so the humour is all of the hokey, wocka-wocka variety and gone are the dry one-liners that sounded so cosmopolitan dripping off the lips of the gorgeous dames from the first film. A cast of second-tier stars and character actors go through the motions here, and the "puttin' on a show" motif seems awfully forced; instead of the make or break world of Broadway, the show here is a charity event hosted by a swanky hotel. Who really cares whether or not the show goes on? The score here is bland too. Of course the movie's big number is "Lullaby of Broadway," which accompanies a long fantasy dance number about a New York socialite's eventual demise from too much partying--doesn't exactly have the same effect as the searing "Forgotten Man" number used as the finale in '33. Busby Berkeley directs as well as choreographs this film, and whatever promise is built up in the film's fluid opening scenes quickly deteriorates. Unfortunately, no one learned any lessons from this, and there was yet another Gold Diggers movie two years later.

Grade: C-


It's impossible to make a film based on such a book as the "Brothers Karamzov" by F.M. Dostojevsky.

Richard Brooks is a great director, but that film is on a very low level.

The worst part of the film was the ending. Well, let's think of the book. In the end we have the "guilty" Dimitrij Karamazov. Afterwards they sent him to Siberia. In the end, the famous epilogues of Dostojevsky, the friends and family making a plan to save him. But that's it ... a nd now the film takes two steps more and shows us an illusion ending of the escape of Dimitry and Gruschenka(I think). just from the moral point I'm sure that Dostojevsky would finish the book with an open end because one the one hand he is not guilty(Smerdjakov is the real murderer) and so he have to be a free man. But on the other hand he goes to his father to kill him, so he has decided to commit the crime... that's a moral dilemma and so the following point is an open end...well, for real ,it's just not full open.

William Shatner as Aljoscha Karamazov... I'm sorry! --> NO!!!

The others characters playing in a good performance as we have to expect it from such great actors ... In front of course a superb performance of Yul Breynner as Dimitrij. I think that there are not many actors who can play this part in a better way.

But as I said in the beginning: This book is unadaptable. It never should be film in two hours that's impossible. I think that there are some 'longer films, so maybe they could do the right thing... But I just keep the opinion that this book can't be adapted.

So - 3 points:

A point for the great director Richard Brooks

A point for a superb performance of Yul Brynner

Finally: A point for one of the greatest writers of all time: Dostojevsky


Apparently SHRUNKEN HEADS was the last movie that Julius Harris had a role in. I have not seen all of his movies, but Julius Harris was in many good movies, and I remember him best from "Live and Let Die" where he played Tee-Hee and which was full of Voodoo references, something that is common here in South Florida! I always thought LIVE AND LET DIE was a great movie because it had some atmosphere and mystique, unlike most of the 007 movies. In SHRUNKEN HEADS, Julius Harris is back in his Voodoo persona! He has a great style for mystery and the occult, and his part in this movie is excellent. Sadly, the rest of the movie is something of a comedy. SPOILERS: Three kids who look like they were fired from the cast of THE LITTLE RASCALS get killed by a neighborhood hoodlum who looks like he got fired from the cast of FAME! or as a dancer on DICK CLARK'S AMERICAN BANDSTAND. In other words, these kids give LOW BUDGET another dimension. Julius Harris goes to the mortuary-Funeral Home, cuts off the three kids' heads (and nobody notices) and then takes them to his Condominium Unit where he has a giant cauldron of boiling liquids. The three heads get tossed in, along with some herbs, spices, and Voodoo items. At some point Mr. Harris has the ugly little heads on a table and he spills his blood on them, and they come to life as talking heads! They can fly, make jokes, roll their eyes, and exact vengeance from the Evil-Doers. They usually look pretty funny flying around, but the effects are not bad. For some reason, one of the kids always has a switch-blade in his mouth, and he uses it to slice people's necks and to cut holes into tires. This movie is weird and funny, but only the first time you see it. Meg Foster is in this movie and she looks fatter than Rosie O'Donnell and Meg plays a masculine leader of the local gangsters. Strange movie.


This is one odd film. It seems to be aimed at a younger audience, but is filled with sexual innuendos. The whole premise is rather absurd, not just the idea of some shrunken heads of three dead kids doing some crime fighting, but the same said kids taking on a gang of tough older guys is a little far-fetched, but then again, the parents are mainly absent in the film and there is a lack of authority figures to keep the kids in line.

The cast are good though, Meg Foster plays a very butch mafia-like leader, with the handsome A.J. Damato as the leader of the bullies. Aerky Egan and Rebecca Herbst are well cast as the young lovers, though for a comic actress of her talent, Leigh Allyn Baker is notoriously wasted in this film.

Overall, the film is unusual, but I don't think that is enough to make up for the poor quality and bumbling execution. The scenery is all rather dull and the "special effects" quite dismal. Sit this one out, unless your in the mood.


This is quite possibly the worst film I have ever seen. I would think you could get that from the title. Also, there is a particular love scene that could be the strangest in the history of film. I can't even remember why I saw this film or when. Only that is an absolutely horrible movie-viewing experience. On the other hand, if you are looking for the absolute weirdest movie to waste two hours of your time, then by all means rent it. Good luck finding it at your local store though. I doubt this movie is in a very wide-distribution. And please do not show this to children by any means as it may warp their impressionable minds forever.


Being a former MST3k watcher, even I found this movie unwatchable. The awful attempts at humor-heck the awful attempts at acting. Nobody needs to read a harangue on this piece of junk.

I just like how all the positive reviews were clearly written by cast members or family friends. Just click on their other reviews and wow--they are all reviewing Modern Vampires. Give me a couple of bucks and I can make a movie better than this. One of the most incompetent pieces of film-making I've ever seen and that's saying something. Watch at your own risk.

Rating: 0/10


I am appalled to see that so many people have given positive reviews for this "film". This movie has no redeeming factors. The music is not good, the acting is pathetic, I have a difficult time understanding how someone could enjoy this movie, let alone sing its "praises". The idea is horrible, certain scenes linked to the plot (such as the continued love story even though the male romantic interest is a SHRUNKEN HEAD) are so bad that I wanted to do myself bodily harm while watching them. The fact that there is scene in which a shrunken head flies under a girls' shirt so he can "feel her up" AND she likes it is reason enough for everyone associated with this film to perish. The link to West Side Story can only be a mockery, since to reference such a great movie in such a horrible one is grounds alone to destroy all copies of this movie. To make a long story short, this film is horrible in every way. And if I had my way, everyone who likes it should go straight to hell....


Nine out of nine people who watched this have declared themselves to be mentally scarred for life. No-one should ever have to see this abomination. The English Language is poorly equipped to express how utterly, dreadfully atrocious this "film" is. It's really not worth the plastic it's made of. No greater crime has been committed by the human race in the entire history of creation; never is there likely to be anything worse.

It was agreed unanimously that the scene involving the shrunken head of Tommy and the young girl's blouse was unbelievably sick and twisted; in fact many of us have not yet recovered from the ordeal and are currently sitting in the corner of the room rocking, sucking our thumbs and whimpering.

The fundamental question on everyone's lips, however, has to be "Why???". How is it possible for anyone to create such a monstrosity and then subject it to so many innocent people? After viewing the trailer we thought that this film might be a laugh: how wrong we were.

Please sign the petition to rid the world of "Shrunken Heads" so that no other poor civilians be exposed to it. Please, for the good of humanity.


This may just be the worst movie ever produced. Worst plot, worst acting, worst special effects...be prepared if you want to watch this. The only way to get enjoyment out of it is to light a match and burn the tape of it, knowing it will never fall into the hands of any sane person again.


My jaw fell so many times watching this flick, I have bruises. Okay, granted, I really wasn't expecting the quality of, say, The Others or even Thirteen Ghosts (the new one, which was just dreadful and is still head and shoulders above this insanity). Someone else noted the thin characters...I wouldn't call them "thin". "Thin" implies there might be something to them. How about almost non-existent? In no particular order we have: The Girl Who Will Scream; The American Who Will Figure It All Out; The Macho Guy Who Will Just Bull Through Everything Until He Gets Killed: The Wise Black Man Who Will Die Early; The Extra Guy Who Is There To Die First; The Extra Woman Who Is There To Play Tough. That's it. That's your character list and that is what they are and what they remain from beginning to end. If they were "thin" they might, at least, change a little bit from beginning to end. But they don't. Well, okay, the American guy decides he's going to stay with the fieldwork at the end and the Screaming Girl goes back to wherever she came from. That's the change. Other than that, they all act according to their assigned roles and rarely betray any real emotion when they finally meet up with the menace.

Now, the producers get props for an original menace, I will say. I had understood the story was going to be "Tremors" but with ants instead of giant worms. I give the writer credit: these are very cool, very scary ants and what they do with bones is excellent. (The first time the "bone snatcher" appear, I admit I jumped a few feet.)Unfortunately, the very cool concept becomes Alien in the Desert very quickly. We get a lot of commentary on ants that may or may not be true, but we don't get much of the mythology on which the menace is based. And we get every monster movie cliché ever made. People go into places they know they shouldn't and when they have no compelling reason to. Moronic characters try to hinder our heroes and die for it. One character does double duty as "scientist who doesn't want to kill the monster but study it". A Very Cool Gadget is introduced only so the American can tell everyone something about ants that, gee, I hope everyone knows anyway. Then the gadget is broken. Our heroes run out of the one thing that can keep the menace at bay. And then there is that final, annoying moment when we know the menace is still with us--and wonder exactly what and how the hey the hero or heroine came by it. It completely renders everything that went before as useless and false.

Three stars for the cool use of ants and bones. Nothing at all for clichés, clunky dialogue and dim bulb characters.


"The Bone Snatcher" starts out extremely promising, with the introduction of a new and original type of unseen evil as well as with the use of the sublimely isolated filming location of the African desert. Whilst checking pipelines out in the desert, three miners are attacked and killed by a seemingly unworldly creature that devours their flesh and only leaves a pile of half-eaten bones. The expedition crew sent to rescue them discovers that the monster is a superiorly mutated ant-queen, and pretty soon they find themselves trapped in the uncanny desert as well. Director Jason Wulfsohn sustains a respectable level of tension just until the nature of the monster is identified. Immediately after that, the film rapidly turns into an ordinary creature-feature with all the characters dropping out of the survival-race one by one. The second half of "The Bone Snatcher" is unendurably boring; with the inevitable love-story clichés as well as a complete absence of gory murder set pieces. The characters all are insufferable stereotypes that act and say exactly what you predict several minutes in advance. There's the rookie who has to prove himself, the female with brain-capacity apart from her hot looks, the obnoxious experienced guy who redeems himself at the end through self-sacrifice and  last but not least  who could forget the wise black guy who refers to the monster using all kind of voodoo names. Wulfsohn tries too hard to make his monster look like the outer space menaces of "Alien" and "Predator". The ant-creature has infrared-vision and crumbles when shot at, yawn! The movie actually just benefits from its unique setting and the handful of nasty images of decomposed bodies. This could have been a modest gem, but instead it's less than mediocre. Avoid.


This horror movie starts out promisingly enough and there is a moment where I thought to myself "this is going to be really good". However, it gets rather boring rather quick at the end. The acting is fairly good, as is the location and the story starts out rather well too. The problem, not enough kills on screen and an ending where you have the monster basically turning tail and running. I wanted to see more, especially after a very good sleeping bag scene where I thought the movie was picking up and going to be a winner. Unfortunately after that the movie showed the monster very little and the back of the DVD lied as it told me that the desert beneath the people literally came alive and was capable of devouring their flesh...now that would have been some movie, a nearly inescapable situation. Granted that would have made viewers uncomfortable and it might of ramped up the tension, but that is what horror movies are supposed to do! Instead we have very few shots of the creature or creatures as it were and when we do see it, it is mainly on the defensive. Still it wasn't all bad, it just needed more horror less hunting and more chomping.


The Bone Snatcher is about a group miners who go on a search for a missing crew of miners in the Namib Desert. When the find them, they are nothing more than bones stripped clean and they could not have been dead for more than six hours. The story keeps you interested as to what exactly caused this. The characters are well enough, and the acting is pretty good.

About an hour and ten minutes in when you find out what is causing the bones to be stripped clean, you sigh "oh, that is really stupid." The movie is ruined by bad writing and a non-exciting ending. Up until that point, the movie was pretty good, and it is a shame that it took such a bad turn. So I cannot recommend this movie. I gave it a 4/10.


This is another Alien imitation and not a very good one at that.Replace outer space with the South African desert,throw in the same ingredients,a group of people stranded in an inhospitable landscape, have them hunted down by an alien creature and you have the same old story of a very ordinary film trying to ape a classic film. A group of miners and scientists go on a hunt for some missing colleagues and find their bones in the desert stripped clean of flesh.Their vehicle breaks down and they head for civilisation while being stalked by the monster. The African location is pretty enough but that is basically all this film has going for it. There is a vain attempt to build up the tension but I found this didn't really work and made the film rather boring.The creature didn't appear much and when it did it didn't really install a feeling of horror.There is one scene where someone gets the flesh ripped from his arm but that was basically it on the gore front. In conclusion i found this film about as exciting as watching paint dry.I give this film 4/10 and that is only because of the interesting location which alone isn't enough to save this movie from being a total snooze-fest


I gave this movie 2 instead of 1 just just because I am a polite person. This movie made me loose 90 minutes of my life in which I could have done something useful for the human kind or just me.

The dialog is poor, the actors never look scared! Even if it's supposed to be a horror movie. For example the scene in which Kurt collects the bones of his former colleague. He should be frightened, but he looks quite normal. The chick of the movie is such a cliché. The one thing I liked about her is the dress she wore in the final scene.And, by the way, the end was extremely predictable with the cocoon blinking pinkly in the box. As a matter of fact, I was thinking more of an ant walking around on the back seat of the car. But it still didn't surprise me.


I wasted 5 dollars renting this complete piece of crap. Dr. Zack is the most unlovable lead character i have ever seen. The movie was full of EVERY cliche you could ever think of and contained not a single OUNCE of originality. There was the typical sexism portrayed by rugged foreigners, all the guys had those 'too-proud to take advice' attitudes that are as stale as grandma's christmas fruitcake. The concept and deaths were really cool, but they lose all novelty once the monster is revealed. (read the SPOILER at the end) Nothing else is really revealed though, the ending is the biggest cop-out you've ever seen. I predicted everything before it happened, including who would die and how. The dialogue is lacking, and that's an understatement by far. There's mostly just random yelling, thoughtful staring, and chunky sentences. The actors are just GOD AWFUL! I don't want to talk about this movie anymore, it's making me angry. I just wonder if the director even watched it when it was done.

(SPOILER ALERT!!!! SAVE 5 DOLLARS!) the monster is just a bunch of ants that "evolved" so now they need bones so they can move around, (nevermind the fact that this serves no evolutionary advantage whatsoever, and that the ants just killed whoever was available, though the movie acts like they kill out of necessity. This movie made me dumber.) The end consists of the lead idiot killing the mother ant (a big blob thing) which destroys all the other ants. Pretty cliche eh? He almost wusses out at the end because of a sudden emotional attachment to the mother-thing that overcomes him. Give me a break.


When I saw the poster at the theater, I thought that it is a "new line" of a horror story without a famous cast worth giving a try. But, after I went in, I wanted to leave after 20 minutes. There was a lot of non-sense and logical flaws. To me, it is a movie that is not worth putting in theaters. It is not even worth seeing.


***SPOILERS*** ***SPOILERS*** Some bunch of Afrikkaner-Hillbilly types are out in the desert looking for Diamonds when they find a hard mound in the middle of a sandy desert area. Spoilers: The dumbest one starts hitting the mound with a pick, and cracks it open. Then he looks into the hole and sticks his head in and SURPRISE! something eats him. The other two dimwits are not seen alive again. Scott Bairstow looks like a Pizza Delivery boy but he plays some kind of expert scientist with a medical degree (which means he should be about 35 years old, minimum). Bairstow is supposed to join Camp C and help them find diamonds. The truck that picks up Bairstow to take him to Camp C has a handful of the kind of weirdoes that usually populate movies like "PITCH BLACK" "THE THING" etc. The truck happens to drive across the first truck and they decide to investigate (how come that truck did not see the other truck when they were driving to pick up Bairstow, since they were travelling the same road??). So they find the eaten bodies, and there are some decent special effects relating to bones with little bits of flesh on them. The main lunatic in the group, Karl, decides that they must find the killer. So the truck drives around in the desert following some tracks, and eventually it has an electrical short and the crew is stuck in the desert. The dumbest guy in this group had picked up a bunch of bones using his jacket to carry them around. When he takes a nap (wearing the same jacket) the creatures eat him alive, and another guy runs over and sticks his arm into the goo and that dummy loses his arm too. Sounds exciting so far, except that a few minutes later, Dr. Bairstow realizes that the creature is really hundreds of thousands of ants who are using the bones to hold each other together so they can travel to a new hive (because the miners cracked open the old hive). Now, last time I checked, ants could move around on their own, without having to kill people in order to use the bones for structure. If all they need was something hard, they could have put a bunch of sticks together and used those to create a form. The whole story is really, really dumb, and the ant explanation is the only one given. The rest of the movie is just about the group getting killed off until they find the new ant-nest, and kill the ant-brain (sort-of), and the hundreds of thousands of ants then walk away on their own itty-bitty feet. There is a spare ant-brain found (off-camera) and sent back for analysis thus creating a reason for a sequel.


This horror tale takes place in the Namib Desert of Africa. A Canadian systems analyst, Zach Straker(Scott Bairstow)is sent on an assignment for a diamond mining company. Although he hates field work, he finds himself in a truck with a rescue unit in the open desert fighting sand flies and whipping, blowing sand. Four diamond prospectors are found...well whats left of their scattered bones are discovered. During a long cold desert night a shape-shifting monster makes its appearance. Zach and his colleagues are terrified when their truck is stranded and members of the unit are dying horribly one by one. There is no character development; let alone dialogue to speak of. The desert set in its own way is beautiful and without giving anything away... the creature is as old as the desert sands. Also in the cast are: Rachel Shelley, Warrick Grier and Patrick Shai.


no really, im not kidding around here folks, and i so cant believe how many people here have given it really really positive reviews! oh wait, its the IMDB comments section, silly me. its interesting to note that at this date, there have not been enough votes to give this film a rating out of ten, yet there are dozens of comments that rave about the film. what does this mean i wonder? anyway, the script IS terrible. character change their personality and motivation and actions every scene, in order to keep the movie running along at something that vaguely resembled a pace. it wasnt even dumb behaviour, that was there too, but the pure idiocy of the script transcended any dumbness the characters displayed. for instance: karl is disobeying an order because there are two dead bodies in the desert and "the killer is out here somewhere" so he forces everyone to travel 40kms in order to find the killer, disobeying orders and p*ssing everyone off. when the hero spots something nasty in the darkness and warns karl, karl tells our hero to stop being an idiot and that there's nothing out there so they are all going home. next scene, he is refusing to let it go and must hunt down whatever it is. it is just a joke. yes, the monster is very impressive, but the crap that the humans say about it just tries to cancel out its interesting aspects, and the predator and alien rip off moments were very tedious. and the ending...the ending!?!?! jesus....the worst film i saw the year, and i saw bug buster!


The name of this film and the clips that I saw caused me to believe that this film would have excitement and interesting moments. I was disappointed. The desert sands were interesting but this film inched along at a snails pace. It started fine with an underground cave and something coming out but then tried to involve us with the lives of some very unlikeable human beings. As they found dead bodies, or should I say, skeletons with some flesh on them, they began a search for the reason why? At times it became somewhat different as something was following them in the desert. Some type of black ooze or something that would begin to eat the flesh of humans. As the flesh was munched upon, a bag of bones began to creep after the remaining humans. The reason for this black ooze as we find out was pretty bad, ants? Unbelieveable! Then the ending made no sense. I guess the motto of this film will be, when you have an itch and see an ant, quickly kill it before the ant's friends smell your flesh.


I think the "Bone Snatcher" should go after anyone associated with this movie. Watching this will seem like the longest 90 minutes or so of your entire life. The plot is boring and stupid. There were no scenes that were horrifying, even remotely. If you manage to endure this fine piece of cinema art all the way to the end, you're either going to be highly disappointed or die laughing hysterically. I bought this movie based on some other reviews I'd read. I wish I had my money back. What a skunker. If you're looking for a horror movie that will hold your interest, watch "U Turn". It may be based on a kooky plot, but it's full of those creepy scenes that keep you jumping from beginning to end.


Such pain! Pain in the shape that it had promise in its central idea, but it never fully recognised it and goes on to blow a lot sand in your face. I wouldn't say this straight-to-video South African/Canadian/UK horror flick is awful, but its just too bland, predictable and there's just very little memorable about it. It's a guarantee you'll forget it, not too long after watching it. I tried watching it last night, but had to finish it during the morning, as I couldn't keep my eyes open. Even then I couldn't remember where I got up to, which left me watching it from the beginning again. The only thing that hit a chord was Andreas Poulsson's sharp cinematography of the vast, harsh and eerie desert locations. A nice glossy chic creates a striking visual sense, which can't save the film from that overall empty feeling. Everything else is below-par and almost comes off grating. Like the head-scratching revelation of the beast. Huh. The computer-generated special effects of the ominous monster are tolerable, and there are some grisly flashes of stripped flesh and bones. But there's too little, as there's no hiding the fact that the clichéd script wants to ponder on the generic character conflict to build tension and uncertainty. That would be fine if the wilted script was more than just basic, shallow fluff, because it never generated any strong, lasting suspense, but makes it uninterestingly labour on. The lead characters are superficial and the token support fall in the dispensable basket. It's your stereotypical bunch. Scott Bairstow and Warrick Grier's performances are colourless, and the beautiful Rachel Shelley tries but looks rather weary.


I's a big struggle. As a story that is surreal, this movie could've been great (as great as it is rated by some here), but mixed with the acting (director and relatives playing major roles, due to financial reasons I reckon) found in here ... although calling this acting, is not only a stretch of that word, it's giving it a new meaning! A whole new meaning!

If you are into surreal movies (there are some that I do like actually, see the Japanese Strange Circus for example), you might be able to overlook the flaws (see above) and enjoy this more. There are great ideas here, after all! Many great metaphors and ambiguous scenes, but while watching this (with a group of friends) almost all of us, just couldn't stop laughing ... not the intention of the director of course! Again, everyone has their own liking, as one can see by the high rating of this movie, but I could only recommend the movie if you're aware of the work that Alejandro Jodorowsky has done and/or are a fan of his!


I'm going to be generous here and give it a 3 only because I live in Huntsville and it was great to see how well the city was filmed. That said, this movie was pretty bad. It's like they started off with hardly any script and the director just told the actors to stare at each other meaningfully with a lot of music playing over it. And Billy D. Williams looked like he'd rather be anywhere but in this movie. It's just a mess. I think I could write a script better than the dislodge for this film, and I'm no writer.

There is one thing I've seen mentioned throughout the reviews and message boards--everyone is under the impression that the movie begins around World War 2 and actually it seemed more like it was supposed to start out in the late 1950's/early 1960's. While the military was not segregated by then, I'm pretty sure that any troops waiting to board a train would still be segregated in a place like Huntsville, Al. If the beginning of film was supposed to be the 1940's, then Billy D, Lesley Ann & Rae Dawn would have to have been in the 70's and 80's instead of their mid 50's or early 60's.

Don't waste your time unless you really, really like the actors because the story isn't very interesting.


This movie is absolutely horrible! I thought because it had good actors in it like Gabrielle Union, Hill Harper, and of course the infamous Billy D. Williams. The movie is long, and drags on with a documentary style of showing Gabrielle Union, who has died in the movie, talking about her family; which by the way is a confusing family because you never know who's who, and who's related to who. I would not recommend this movie to anyone, and I wish I could take it back where I got it from. I fell asleep from time to time because of the boredom. Do not waste your time or money on this movie. It could had been more true to life with more drama, and less boredom.


This film wasn't good at all. I was able to catch it at a film festival and didn't appreciate the content I was forced to watch. It's a well shot film about family looking to reconnect after the death of the family's cornerstone (Gabrielle Union) dies. the film stars Billy Dee Williams as Gabrielle's Union's brother. Well, actually, Gabrielle Union portrayed the woman in her early years, which should help explain why the woman was Billy Dee Williams older sister. This had to be Billy Dee William's worst performance in his career, ever. He looked as if he didn't remember his lines in a few scenes. He was an unlikable, hardly ever empathetic character, who fathered a daughter while married to a white woman whom he already had a daughter with as well. The two daughters are older now and while the daughter he had with the white woman (Lucy) was trying to connect with him, his other daughter didn't want anything to do with him. Billy Dee's character was so pathetic that the only way they can get him to fly in from Paris for his sister's funeral was by telling him that the funeral had already passed and his late sister left him with the responsibility of handling her paperwork. Why they had to fool him? Because he didn't like attending funerals. I know. You're asking, "but he didn't want to attend his own sister's funeral too?" Yes! He claims he didn't like being around the forced feelings of emotions that is shared amongst the people paying their respects. He didn't want anything to do with that. Now we're suppose to empathize with that a**hole? The rest of the performances in the film were flat with equally flat characters. The director and editor didn't care to consider the pacing of the film. The flashbacks were painful to watch. It was a bad film. However, it seems to be the favorite at black film festivals; a film that glorifies African-Americans dependence on Caucasians to find a love that they can settle down with, even if it is a healthy relationship. When lame love stories like this win best of festivals at the black film festivals, it makes me question the judgment of black people on film. In these same festivals, the only films that win awards are educational films about African American culture and black films directed by Caucasian directors. I'm not saying that anything is wrong with a white person directing stories written for people of color. The problems with these films is that they never argue from both point of views, which are usually the films that actually speaks to the masses. These films are often one-sided forms of didacticism. These films fail at executing the powers of both sides of the argument that the film is revolved around. The writers and directors never compose the scenes and sequences that contradict your final statement with as much truth and energy as those that reinforce it. These films always slant the argument. What I am saying is, are the people running these black film festivals judging a film off of pure content, which to me means directing, acting, writing cinematography, editing, etc., or are they judging films off of strictly the message being delivered about African American culture? Are we suppose to expect a film like Constellation to have a shot in the world against films like "Million Dollar Baby" and "Sideways?" What happened to film being entertaining? When I mean entertainment, I mean the ritual of sitting in the dark, staring at the screen, investing tremendous concentration and energy into what one hopes will be satisfying, meaningful emotional experience. Why can't these festivals appreciate films that get their messages across without preaching? Why can't these black film festivals acknowledge films that are well told pieces of work that are brutally honest, telling the truth? "I believe we have no responsibility to cure social ills or renew faith in humanity, to uplift the spirits of society or even express our inner being. We have only one responsibility: to tell the truth."--Robert McKee. Now that's something I totally agree with. These same black film festivals put down "Hustle and Flo" as if it is that awful film stereotyping blacks. However, it's an honest film about a pimp with a dream. A pimp can't dream? I recall the last time I saw a real pimp he was a human being. And aren't they, pimps and prostitution a harsh reality in our society at large, not just in the black community but all over? The powers that be in "black Hollywood" believe that films like this are making Afro-Americans look bad in the eyes of others, as if others don't know that there are pimps in the hood. The truth is, until African American people in film can accept the truth about themselves and dare to share it with the world, then our films will never have a chance in the world. This film was awful. The best thing was the cinematography and Zoe.


I don't care what anyone says, this movie is hilarious! It combines the bleak seriousness of Threads with an anarchic blend of alternative comedy, and the results are a severely dark, but outrageously funny satire on the brinkmanship policies of both the Western and Eastern blocs at the time. You gotta give the filmmakers credit for even attempting to top the real life lunacy of "Duck and cover" or "Protect and survive"!

Imagine someone made a movie based on the Dead Kennedys track 'Kinky Sex Makes The World Go Round', and you're pretty close to Whoops! Apocalypse. Add Rik Mayall on top form as an insanely OTT SAS commander and you've got it exactly. A worthy companion piece to Dr Strangelove, and that's saying something.


What an utter disappointment. Forget this abysmal film and get hold of the TV series instead. What on earth were they doing making the American president relatively sane? ALL the politicians should have been bumbling buffoons (Peter Cook is good as the British PM). It lacks the biting satire of the original, going instead for "lowest common denominator" slapstick. 1 out of 10 if I'm being generous! This is unfortunately yet another example of a remake which totally misses the point of the original, the difference with this one being that they were both written by the same people.


Since THE MAGUS is a confusing puzzle that really has no solution, one should sit back and enjoy the scenery. Set on a "remote Greek island," it stars a very uptight Michael Caine as a teacher working at a school for boys who gets caught up in mind games with local wacko/mystery man Anthony Quinn and his daffy girlfriend Candice Bergen. Quinn, looking like Pablo Picasso with white hair and striped sailor shirt, is actually pretty good but Caine looks like he's ready to explode. Bergen, although stunning, should NOT put on a British accent EVER. She's not very good at that type of thing. Guy Green's direction is fine, but unless you have infinite patience with the circular logic of the film, you will not enjoy it. A real sour note is the casting of the effervescent Anna Karina in the completely joyless role of Caine's girlfriend. After seeing her in the likes of A WOMAN IS A WOMAN and A BAND APART, her presence here is quite jarring.


I loved the gorgeous Greek scenery but the story, which is not something you can follow anyway, was even harder to follow in the movie. I cannot imagine how anyone watching the movie can get any kind of grip on it if they have not read the book, and then, like me, they would probably wonder why Australian Allison turned into French Anne, and many other seemingly pointless changes in the story. The mysteries in the book seemed to be chopped up or left out in the movie. I saw it when it first came out and had the same problems with it then, since I had read the book several times. I recently watched it with my granddaughter (very intelligent at 20 and usually into movies I like) who was mostly amazed at how young Michael Caine and Candace Bergen were in it, but otherwise could not imagine why one would watch it except for the scenery.


I have always wanted to see the movie because I loved the novel, but was warned away because I'd heard that the movie was a stinker. It is. Fowles wrote the script and I could follow it fine, despite the fact that I read the novel over thirty years ago.

The soundtrack is execrable--jarring, jangling, and utterly inappropriate--breaking any attempt at mystery or mood in the movie. I suspect that the director must take a lot of the blame as even Michael Caine is terrible in it and he was already doing excellent work in ALFIE a couple of years earlier.

The "Mysteries" evoked by the book are not well-translated onto the screen. I'd love to see someone remake this one.


Don't be taken in because the premise of this film is a good one. It is, but that, does not a good film, make.

Comedies require a well-honed script and masterful direction. Sadly, this poorly executed film has neither. Leconte, a good director in other genres, does not deliver in his comedic farces (Les Bronzes series being another example).

The comedic timing is terrible. Some jokes are telegraphed. Some are re-hashed from other movies. Others just sit there as if they were giving you time to laugh. The plot has messy subplots (the allergic daughter, the lesbian co-owner) and just does not develop or envelope the viewer. It isn't funny and it isn't believable for a second.

Compare this to any comedy by Billy Wilder (Some Like it Hot, A Foreign Afair, etc.) or by Leconte's compatriot, Francis Veber, a true GENIUS at French comedy (Le Diner de Cons, Le Placard, Les Comperes, La Chevre, La Grande Blonde, etc.) and you'll see the difference in their tight scripts, great comedic acting and timing, with each joke leading to the next one.

Watching Mon Meilleur Ami twice would be cruel and unusual punishment, not a good sign for a comedy.


Writer-director Patrice Leconte takes a universal and potentially bottomless subject - friendship - and turns it into a flat and meaningless farce, despite A-list actors, fine cinematography and elegant production design. It's all in the plot, and the plot is laughable. "Teach me how to be likable", art dealer François Coste (Daniel Auteuil) tells a random stranger (Dany Boon), and that about sums it up. We learn next to nothing about friendship, and Daniel Auteuil may be a fine actor, but not one minute do we believe he could be the cut-throat egoist the script depends on him to be. Just as we hope the travesty is over, Leconte pulls one of his usual cathartic third acts, fast-forwarding from damage to disaster. Like François's treasured Greek vase, everyone and everything in this movie is a fake. Leconte's only asset is Julie Gayet in the part of Coste's business partner Catherine, looking swell and sexy despite a major mishap of a haircut.


This movie was horrible and corny. James Agee is rolling in his grave.This movie was nothing at all like the book and made a mockery of it. No one should see this movie unless they want to gag.


As I watched this movie, I felt as if a plastic bag was slowly closing in around my head. The acting was horribly stifling, and it was Bad Acting. The most brilliant piece of acting in the entire film was the guy who had to play laid-out-in-state-in-a-coffin. I felt nothing but relief when it was finally over. I was expecting that this film was going to be some real tragedy, with some deep psychological intrigue in the aftermath. All around it was stupid, no beginning, no climax, no ending, just rambling on and on, and the plastic bag kept getting worse. Let's get real here. This is an awful movie.


Teenage Exorcist is one of those God-awful films to video that makes the viewer give up any expectations of decent entertainment for low brow sexual antics, adolescent humour, and empty writing. This film delivers exactly what its was trying to deliver. It is about a girl moving into a house where a Baron de Sade(hmmm) once lived and finally being drawn to him through her own inner demon. Her sister and brother-in-law, along with an Irish priest, her boyfriend, and a pizza delivery boy, try to save her and exorcise her demon. Well, not much here in way of horror or suspense. In fact, one line from the film pretty much sums up what to expect. Mike(the girl's brother-in-law) has tied her(the name is Diane by the way and she is played by Brinke Stevens) up after trying to chainsaw her sister. He removes a gag from her mouth and says something like, "This won't be the last gag we see tonight." Indeed, it was not. The special effects are cheesy and poorly crafted, and the film makes use of this by playing on its comedic appeal. Some of the lines and situations are funny. Robert Quarry, old Count Yorga himself, really steals his scenes as an Irish priest. He hams it up wailing Biblical verses and crooning Irish songs. You know you are in trouble, however, when Eddie Deezen gets top billing. Deezen does his schtick and has a couple nice moments as well, but the material is just too threadbare than to be anything more than teenage sophomoric time filler. Michael Berryman, from The Hills Have Eyes, also has a brief but interesting cameo in the film. As for the other thespians, well, they are all pretty good at being pretty mediocre. Stevens is lovely in fishnet stockings and French-cut panties, but beyond that don't expect too much more from her. Her sister is played by Elena Sahagun, and she shows a bit more than Brinke(a very lovely young lady by the way) and out acts Brinke by miles. Her husband, played by Jay Richardson shows off his ability to act and be funny amidst mediocrity. Again, not a bad film to waste a little time that involves NO thinking on. If you are a Robert Quarry fan, watch it for his performance at the very least.


Going into the movie with the right expectations, I somewhat liked this movie. Like most reviewers who have seen this movie, I fully agree that the plot was razor thin, clichéd, and I could predict every plot twist from the very beginning of the movie. But, the dancing sequences were VERY well done, and I really enjoyed the fusion of classical and hip-hop dance (both which I enjoy watching). The music/soundtrack of the movie was also very good, which made the "drama" scenes more bearable. The leads (Jenna Dewan and Channing Tatum) were OK as actors, but their dancing throughout the movie was impressive and mesmerizing.

All in all, a movie worth watching if you like to watch good dance sequences, and this movie is MUCH MUCH MUCH better than "You Got Served" in terms of the plot and drama. Then again, that doesn't say much, does it? =P


Step Up is a fair dance film about some kids that get their big performance break. The film is average in every way with little more for the viewer. A jock fights external prejudices to become a dancer with an accomplished partner and a teach who sees something special. The acting was fine, but the dialog and directing had little to add to overcoming a predictable story. None the less you still feel quite good about the outcome of the film. There were some dark scenes and some typical generalizations about dancers that went a little overboard. This is a class B+ film with moderate continuity errors and dialog mishaps. The scenery was good and the characters held true to life. It is worth the watch if you like that kind of film.


I wasn't really interested in seeing Step Up, but my friend just kept bugging and bugging me to see this film, especially since she is so in love with Channing Tatum, I tease her constantly about it saying how that's the only reason why she loved the movie. But she somehow convinced me that it was a movie worth seeing, that if I loved movies like Dirty Dancing, Take the Lead, and Save the Last Dance, that I should love Step Up, eh, what the heck? I guess every movie in some way has it's right to a view.

Well, you know those movies I just mentioned up top? Dirty Dancing, Take the Lead, and Save the Last Dance? Well, put them in a blender with some gangsta love in it and that's what you have. Not to mention if you've seen those movies, well, frankly, you have seen Step Up. Because Channing is lower class with street smarts who just naturally feels the music while that snobby up class girl must follow step by step, how will they ever fall in love if they are so different? After all, this is their chance to "step up" to the passion, the mystery, and the lust of the dance!

OK, that was a silly plot explanation, but like I said, as long as you've seen those movies I mentioned, or even if you just saw the plot, you get the movie. I don't understand how it actually has a 5.5 rating, I bet it's those Channing lovers! LOL! I'm kidding with you guys, but it's all good, I guess I just didn't get what others did with the passion, the mystery that is the dance! Oh, Antonio Bandares, where are you when we need you?!

4/10


the actors cannot act. all dialoague was plagued with bad accents and loss of character. Channing Tatum never moves his lips or changes his facial expression... EVER.

the story is nothing new at all. some kid from the street gets involved in a professional world of dance and it turns his life around. that coupled with the whole incident involving the little kid is taken straight from You Got Served and Save the Last Dance (I'm not saying that those movies were any good either, but that is to say that this movie brought nothing new to the table).

and the dancing... THERE WERE ONLY 3 DANCE SEQUENCES IN THE ENTIRE MOVIE AND 2 OF THEM WERE TAKEN STRAIGHT FROM THE COMMERCIAL. perhaps i'm being overly critical because i am a dancer, but maybe thats what needs to be heard. Channing Tatum is NOT by any means a b-boy. his little solo in the parking lot had little style, technique, or any wow factor, all of which are part of a street dancer's criteria. All of the jazz and ballet in the movie had nothing to offer except bad technique and a few acceptable twirls, but nothing more. the grande finale left me thinking "... OK, now they're gonna get serious" all the way through the end when i realized it never was going to happen.

i'll admit that im sure it is difficult to make a good dance movie, but Step up is no exception to the rule. You Got Served, with the exception of its inconsistencies with street dance culture at least had the dance aspect. Save the Last Dance was garbage, and so was just about any musical from the past 10 years (although i was impressed with Moulin Rouge)... look to Center Stage for Ballet, look to Beat Street for Hip-Hop


'Take Fame' and 'You've Got Served' and roughly jam them together and what do you got? This God awful movie custom made for dull-normal adolescents. The plot very closely follows 'You've Got Served.' Three ghetto afro-teeners, this time living in John Water's Baltimorenot far from 'Peckers' homespend their time getting failing grades in high school and dancing in dilapidated 100-year-old buildings with hoochy-mamas. To finance their expensive baggy hip-hop clothing tastes, they steal cars and deliver them to the local chop shopnot unlike John (Tony Manaro) Travolta who worked in a Brooklyn paint store so he could purchase his polyester disco clothes.

Tyler Gage, one of the black three musketeers, gets caught trashing the local Fame High School and is forced to perform janitorial duties. He meets Nora Clark, a 26-year-old white high school student and discovers he's Irish-American, much to the chagrin of his black buddies Mac and Skinny.

As in 'You've Got Served' crime doesn't pay and Skinny, the youngest member of the trio gets shot by a Bad Bad Leroy Brown typebut that doesn't stop the musicand heart-stopping finale.


Seriously I don't get why people are all like "Oh my God Step Up is the best movie ever!!!" It's a bunch of junk! The acting, first of all, is ridiculous, and let's not even begin to talk about the dialogue because it was terrible...Movies are supposed to be entertaining, and this, let me be the first to say, was *not* entertainment. I was actually laughing because I was so embarrassed watching it. The music and dancing didn't do anything for me as well. And what's with the Channing Tatum "hotness" that all the girls talk about? Whatever. The movie was pathetic. Don't waste your time - or your money. Unless you're a dancing movie freak, but movies like that are *not* movies...they're jokes.