Maybe we Aussies just have a totally different sense of humour and therein my lie the only problem here. I have a database of all the DVDs I own (including those received as gifts - which this was) and so, when entering a new one, I always refer to IMDb for such info as genre, runtime, director, leads etc. When entering this, I noted that it was a comedy and so I decided to watch it at a time when I wanted something light and a good laugh. Well, it was neither! There were absolutely NO laughs at all and an inordinate amount of gratuitous profanity (are there REALLY radio announcers allowed to broadcast the sort of filth that Steve Jones dishes out? What if a decent child happened to tune to his station?).

Rather than enjoy a good laugh (or even a little giggle) I found the whole thing thoroughly depressing. I have given it 3 out of 10 but, to be honest, I don't know what those 3 are for! I suppose the basics of lighting and sound weren't too bad!

We have an ostensibly stone-broke loser (Giovanni Ribisi) who still seems to be able to drive a reasonable car (who pays for the fuel?) and live in what could be a nice apartment (who pays his rent?) Given the opportunity of forming what might have been some sort of meaningful relationship with what turned out to be a nice girl, he even blew that! Perhaps it was she (Lynn Collins) who earned this movie the 3 points! The fact that she works as a stripper rather than a hairdresser is one of the few aspects of this movie that makes sense ("I make as much in one night doing this as I do in two weeks' hairdressing").

Unless you want to get depressed and bored to the teeth, forget it!


This really is by far the worst movie I've ever seen in my whole life (I'm approaching 47)! The description on the back of the cover equaled the scrolling text right at the begin of the movie. The further plot was nil and even a bunch of corpses would have shown more life in their "acting". I viewed the full length of it and was really relieved when the final character's death signalled the end of my suffering! The location was either some kind of vaults or a grimy beach. I suppose, that home-video equipment served as camera and the lighting was sub-standard. The dialogues were uninspired and devoid of meaning. As were the actors faces. Which brings me to the topic "make-up": By the looks of it they got it as gimmicks in some teen-ager's magazines "my first own make-up" or similar. What made me buy the DVD was the name "Lovecraft" printed on the cover. The only connection with this brilliant mind's works was the use of the name "Necronomicon", which was wrongly translated as "Book of Light". The 4,70 EURO I paid for this DVD were a complete loss, for the DVD went into the recycling box without any further ado.


As I was watching it, I was getting ready to compose a blasting, lambasting critique of this "film," (it is actually video), but then I saw that someone already did. I pretty much agree with him. But then again, it looks like a lot of effort and millions of lira went into it, so I guess you gotta give them some credit for trying. However, that being said, anyone who doesn't already know the Lovecraftian world and that this is what they were trying to convey will probably think, ... well, I suppose, that not only is it really bad, but it makes absolutely no sense. Thank god I read part of the other review ('twas a little gushy, maybe?) which revealed that this guy also did "The Shunned House," (which looked pretty bad, judging by the DVD box), so now I can avoid it and save my mind from any further exposure to such desecration of the brilliance of H.P. Lovecraft.


it's a real big bummer that people easily are able too make movies because of cheap digital video cams nowadays. usually I would appreciate this possibility but if you see movies like this it's just a big shame. and it's also big shame if people like h.p. lovecraft get abused by the likes of this. I rented this "movie" cuz of the drop "h.p. lovecraft" on it. and I'm a big fan of many of his adaptions, mainly those done by brian yuzna & stuart gordon. this movie has nothing to deliver! a cheap scenery on a beach and in an old wine-cellar. digi-cam effect "red light" over the whole movie. no actors, just some stupid low-grade models who have for sure no idea what they are doing, stiff as wood. and so must be the director. It's obvious that he tried to create some atmosphere. but as the whole things is so laughable it just doesn't work. and no gore-effects, just some blood in a river (you drink = you become demon) and dropping here and there. oh yeah, the story: thousands of years ago some "big old" colonised the world and took humans as slaves. then mankind got independent, so the "old ones" tried to destroy them. and now there are some survivors in a post-apocalyptic world. the only possibility to save mankind is to find the NECRONOMICON, that's where it gets to LOVECRAFT. so those soldiers fight against some undead and demons on their beach and in their wine-cellar. unbelievable - the whole thing! but as it is dubbed (german title: "Armee des Jenseits) and you can find it in most commercial video-stores it seems as if you can make money with stuff like that. I find this fact impressive.


I'm sort of between the gushy review and the hate review. I've been a fan of Lovecraft (and a Lovecraft 'purist') for a long time, and while this little amateur film was of poor quality it had a number of redeeming qualities. I went into viewing expecting the worst thing I've ever seen, and wondering if Lovecraft would turn in his grave over it, but I was shocked to find that I actually kind of liked it.

I don't want to catalog the movie's faults, so I'll only mention a few that keep this movie from being a 'stellar amateur effort'.

It's very low budget and shot on a video cam, so it has the look of some soap operas, but once you get used to the idea then it ceases to be a big deal. The direction is pretty amateur and the shot framing and use of distance in the shots is rather clumsy. STILL, this film was actually kind of creepy and it stayed more faithful to Lovecraftian intent than nearly all the Stuart Gordan and Brian Yuzna travesties (my main exception to those films being Re-Animator and Dagon) put together. The idea of being impregnated by some Old One is reminiscent of Dunwich Horror and Shadow over Innsmouth (which isn't to say this movie is as good as those stories!!), so the overall plot is quite faithful to Lovecraft's ideas. One thing that annoyed me was that words out of the bible seemed to make a zombie prisoner upset and afraid. I'm not sure if this was meant to indicate that 'God's' words upset the Old Ones or just this particular zombie. There was no real answer to that. The rest of the Christian symbolism in it reminds me of August Derleth's take on the mythos. So in a way this was a Derleth style take on the mythos.

I would recommend this film only as a curiosity. It shows how a fairly atmospheric movie can be made with nearly zero budget. I liked the setting of the wine cellars. The outdoor shots were sad, though. Using the same stretch of beach and trees (and nearly the same damn shot) to convey 3 characters' long journey was really sad. The director needs whack upside the head for that. The acting was standard for an amateur film, with the blonde zombie girl getting a personal award for "Best Impersonation of Gollum by an Italian Actress". Actually I think this film was done prior to the Lord of the Rings movies. Maybe Andy Sedaris watched her and thought "Dang, she'd make a great Gollum!"

One little kudo to the director, though. The makeup on the zombies was like bad goth kids. I was upset seeing this and nearly stopped watching. I was like "Oh so that's how we know she's evil and possessed", but later on in the movie you see a girl painting makeup like that on the face of an older woman (both living). So it wasn't an attempt to say 'goth makeup = zombie' but rather, 'goth makeup was left on after zombification'. However, possessed/zombie does equal 'blue contact lenses'...heh.

On the whole, I still liked this movie better than the Yuzna and Gordan films (barring the aforementioned exceptions). Yuzna and Gordan had much better budgets, but this film did a better job at filming a Lovecraft-like story than they did, and on a tiny budget.

One quick word to the the make-up artist: I know you wanted 'claws' or something on Zariah's fingers, but long, black press-on nails looked really silly.

A quick word to the writer of the score: I know you couldn't resist, and apparently neither could the director who okayed it, but when the two characters square off with guns for a 'duel', playing that little whistle from "The Good, the bad, and the ugly" killed any mood that scene had accumulated. It was cute, but cute wasn't appropriate.

The filmmakers of this movie have read Lovecraft and had a great deal of respect for him. I enjoyed the little nods here and there: the character Carter with the bad dreams, and the character Pickman who becomes a ghoulish zombie.


I'm a big fan of H. P. Lovecraft's books, and the Mythos background spawned some rather good other stories and stuff like that. And in the last years there came along some boys who did movies about H. P.'s work,  for the bigger part low-budged flicks  and showed them to the public at places like the H. P. Lovecraft Film Festival. Now, like I said, most of them don't have a big budged, but they at least know the heart and "soul" of Lovecrafts work and films like "Cool Air" or "The Call of Cthulhu" - are what I would think - gifts for the fan base and other loonies that like H.P.'s creation.

And then there are people like Ivan Zuccon, who just rip off the name and create a movie which would have been fun to watch if I had directed it myself and filmed with some friends down at the beach. That is what Mr. Zuccon did as it seems...but, while blokes like Aaron Vanek's or Bryan Moore's earlier movies might not have had more budged, they somehow still had more to offer , like a story, real characters and some connection to Lovecraft! Just blabbering out names like "Nyarlathotep" or "Necronomicon" makes a movie not a Lovecraft-adaption.

Anyway, this flick will not only make fans of the Mythos shudder and hide, it will also not appeal to people who 1. like good movies, 2. laugh about bad movies, 3. like good C-grade splatter movies or 4. watch everything that has Horror written on the DVD-cover. I will not go into the "plott" of this waste of time, as it has already been discussed by others here on this page, but like I said, Unknown Beyond is like a movie I would have made up with some geeky friends.. Aside from that it lacks ideas for any storytelling and goes into ridiculous "moronic-nonsense-but-he-it's-art-stuff". Self-made flicks of this "quality" are fun to watch if you know all the blokes in it and ha-ha, see how XY is coughing out the fake blood we made from old tomato sauce and stuff  but hey, you don't put this in a DVD-casing, declare it an actual movie and want money for it

I give it 2/10 because of the I dunno  effort or something like that


At least if you're a Disney fanatic (well, of the variety who loves their live-action films as well as the animated stuff), if you're a kid, if you're a kid at heart almost to the extent that you hardly realize you're an adult, if you love absolutely any film that features animals, especially when they're doing tricks, or if you're just not too demanding, Air Bud: World Pup is somewhat enjoyable to watch. I'm a Disney fanatic. I enjoyed this film enough, and I'll gladly watch it again.

But boy does it have a lot of problems. The main flaw arises from a combination of too many characters, too many plot threads and not enough time to take care of them all. In the space of 82 minutes, we've got adults getting married, teens falling in love and trying not to be awkward at it, teen competition for love and jealousy, preteens playing spy games, dogs falling in love, dogs playing soccer, dogs having puppies, manipulative parents who'll do anything to make their kids win being taught a lesson by their kids, housekeeper dilemmas, and crooks cooking up and executing elaborate plots. I'm probably forgetting something, but that's 10 big plot issues to be dealt with, with less than 10 minutes per thread to deal with them, and presumably weave them into a coherent whole that's both not too complicated--this is a kids' film, after all--and that's also humorous and heartwarming. Not surprisingly, director Bill Bannerman, on his first turn being completely in charge (he has a lot of previous second unit experience), wasn't quite up to the task. I'm sure it didn't help that there were at least three screenwriters involved, and probably dictating producers, as well.

The end result is that Air Bud: World Pup is extremely choppy. Events occur with little justification, and worse, often little explanation. People figure out and do things primarily because they need to--and fast--so that everything can arrive where it needs to arrive in less than 90 minutes. From one cut to the next, time might jump ahead six months or so. We have both adults who seem like maybe they're mentally disabled and kids who just intuitively figure out what a dog is thinking and rush into some unexpected action. Some of the threads should have simply been removed, because it's difficult to become too engaged in the film when as soon as you're introduced to an idea, it's already passed you by.

Also not helping is the fact that one of the threads is basically a rip-off of One Hundred and One Dalmatians (1961), minus a Cruella De Vil character. And another problem is that given the way the film is edited, I have to assume that the dog, Air Bud, probably couldn't do much with the soccer ball. Unlike the first two films, a dog playing a sport is almost an afterthought here, and when we see him, it's in very quick glimpses; every once in a while, these snippets appear to be even aided by computer animation.

Yet, for someone like me, there's a cheesy charm to Air Bud: World Pup. The script and performances often teeter between ridiculous, hokey and kinda clichéd. I tend to like that combination. It makes the film both a bit predictable and subtly bizarre. And at times, like the ending, when the film completely abandons consistency and basically becomes a commercial for the U.S. Women's Soccer Team, Air Bud: World Pup is so blatantly tacky that you can't help but love it.


I suppose that to say this is an all-out terrible movie would be unfair, but it's pretty bad. The sub-Disney storyline involves dogs playing soccer and falling in love (aw, how cute!) The acting isn't bad, but definitely could be better, especially that of young Canadian actor Kevin Zegers, who, during the whole movie, looks embarrassed, like he doesn't even want to be there. Anyway, kids will love it, but parents beware!


If you're coming to this film to learn something about depression, forget it: you won't learn anything except how not to write a screenplay on the subject. I understand the intent was to show how severe depression can turn an average person into a complete wreck, but the result is the most one-dimensional character I've ever seen in a Hollywood feature... no small feat. Christina Ricci as Elizabeth spends the entirety of this film screaming at the top of her lungs, viciously insulting someone, bursting into tears or some combination of the three (the only exceptions being some quiet sulking at the beginning and end). There is not the slightest hint of what she might be like WITHOUT depression... not the faintest glimmer of any other aspects of her personality... she just screams. At one point, her roommate tells her, "Lizzie, you're such a fun person to be around when you're not being depressed," and my reaction was, "She IS?" It seemed odd that the writers would include this comment without giving us any examples, but this script is a lesson in incompetence. It has no discernible structure or flow at all; instead, it consists of a series of awkwardly strung-together scenes of Lizzie screaming, then ends. Character development? No... Scenes of her everyday existence, i.e. going to classes, that might possibly be important details? No... Screaming at maximum volume? CHECK. It's not quite enough, I'm afraid. 1/10.


Last night I got to see an early preview screener of Prozac Nation. Because I love everything that Christina Ricci does I was very excited at first, but as the movie continued I started to wonder where it was going. Based on a true story, it is simply about Christina Ricci's character and her struggle with depression, drugs, friends and family as you can probably tell from the title. In my opinion this movie moved too fast, and it was way too dramatic. I would say there was a dramatic moment every five minutes, and the movie moved through her life extremely fast, and this left no room for us to connect with Christina Ricci's character. Christina Ricci's performance was fantastic as always but Jessica Lange stood out throughout the whole movie, and I believe this movie's success will be all because of her and Christina Ricci. I would rate this 4 out of 10 and I would suggest you rent this one or read the books by Elizabeth Wurtzel they are good and definitely worth checking out.


I seldom see a film with such a cast, such a potentially strong story and based on a bestselling book that has been this weak and to some extent unwatchable...

The premise of a story reads like a Brent Easton Ellis novel - a lot of drugs, hopelessness and self-induced tragedy as a young Elisabeth Wurtzel (played by Christina Ricci) tries to cope with being a suicidal loser, that can't seem to accept that she is actually living a good life and that basically she is pathetic for being such a baby...

Christina Ricci is not only playing a tragic personae, but also a tragic actor, whose sobbing and screeching for the most part of the movie actually make you want to shout - kill yourself already and let us get to the credits rolling... The director is of no help as he supplies absolutely no pace and the story feels so disjointed you have no idea what this damn girl is actually on about. The director apparently was on Prozac when directing this imitation of a movie and hence let the movie go on autopilot making it an unbearable mess.

The only redeeming features are a sympathetic Jason Biggs, as Wurtzel's boyfriend (who thankfully decided to dump the self-indulgent egocentric egomaniac) and an unbelievably good Jessica Lange as the cry-babies mother. Lange apparently can not be brought down by terrible script, directing and dire co-actors. Pure class.

I don't know if this is really who Wurtzel is or was, but the film has successfully made me totally uninterested in her writings.

In the end I finished watching this movie and instantly started to think: OK. Time to watch something, that actually is about REAL problems...


Congratulations to Christina Ricci for making this movie and putting her mojo behind this important subject and trying to make a great film. Ricci is my favorite actress: She is so gifted, so natural, her reactions are perfect and so is the energy she constantly radiates, which gives credence to the often misapplied term "star."

The film misses its mark for lots of various reasons, but perhaps most notably for the story's seeming unadaptability to the screen in making it a compelling narrative...more on that later. The cast at first glance is excellent, but come to think of it, Jessica Lang as the Jewish mother is too Protestant and not exactly right, Ann Hetch doesn't come close to showing the compassion and dedication of the psychiatrist from the book, and when your making a movie, how can you justify saying no to Anne Heche and Jessica Lange? But the real problems are in the film's construction: first in the failure to elicit any kind of lasting sympathy for the Elizabeth Wurtzle character, and second to say anything meaningful regarding the all too common and horrible situation that this poor girl finds herself in.

Unfortunately do to the flashback construction, Lizzy merely comes off as certainly more affected teenager than most, but not nearly as devastatingly ill as she comes off in the book. This is a major problem. This story had to be told from beginning to end and from the therapist's couch. She is only eight or nine when her depression starts due to devastating social factors, both society and the home, and this is a crucial point in not only eliciting the proper sympathy for her but also of the gravitas of her case. She is so talented, and such a vulnerable and disaffected spirit so early on, that one's heart can't help but reach out to her due to her victimization. This is missed on the film.

Ultimately one has to come to terms with what the film is trying to say: it is a biopic of one severely affected girl, but also it is a film about a nation who can't get its act together; that is very clear in the book but interestingly not in the film where the chosen at Harvard are even more messed up than the average college enrollee. The film finally isn't able to get either of these messages across compellingly, and that's too bad. Is Prozac a good thing or is it a bad thing, or a mixed blessing or a seeming necessity in a country in which so many people can't function without a chemical crutch? These are tough and challenging concepts to work with and the writing does not really attempt to address any of them in a more or less engaging way. The Challenger disaster is an interesting image to symbolize a dysfunctional America, but that doesn't have the effect it's suppose to have due to the crosscutting and insufficient earlier development of controlling themes.

Ricci's performance is tight and heartfelt, and one of the best of her acting career.

Michele Williams is also superb in her role.


It seems no matter what I see her in, Christina Ricci seems full of promise but fails to deliver. Sure she can cry and scream, but Prozac Nation sees Ricci totally out of her depth, perhaps I'm being too harsh.... okay, I'm shifting the blame to the director. Jessica Lange is outrageous and almost reaches Faye Dunaway heights of megadramatisation. Unfortunately I think Lange peaked with Frances and it was all downhill from there. There was every chance of this film being slick and witty while tackling depression head on. What we get instead is poorly acted hysteria dressed up with a stereotypical try hard eighties veneer. I really had no sense of the films eighties backdrop, since I was unsatisfied with the lame attempt at making believe it was the eighties just because ms Ricci wears a madonna inspired dress to her "lost my virginity" celebration. Cmon everyone, you are ALL better than this. The filmmakers should hang their heads in shame, and as a result of disappointment, Elizabeth Wurtzel could probably make a bundle if she sued for "irrepairable emotional damages" as a result of the finished product. go on lizzie, sue! I would


In the real world of art Elizabeth Wurtzel is the sexy drama queen every guy wants to do, but no guy wants to wake up next to. Her on-screen portrayer, Christina Ricci, is the ugly artsy wannabe girl that desperately wants every and any guy, but no guy will touch her. That's why, in Prozac Nation, the unreleased 2001 film of Wurtzel's 1990s bestseller book of the same name, there are immediate problems. OK, the problems start before the miscast of Ricci, who has the emotional range of a thimble- is it any wonder that, by far, her finest acting was in the two Addams Family films? First off, she is bizarre looking- with big eyes and a bulging forehead, making her look like the fetal Starchild from 2001: A Space Odyssey. Secondly, she always plays whiney brats. But, thirdly, is the way films try to make it appear any guy would be attracted to her. In one scene in the film her pal Ruby (Michelle Williams) and Liz walk through Harvard, and all the guys' tongues are wagging at Ricci, not the super-cute and sexy Williams. Hello.Reality check time. This material begged for the Andy Warhol treatment. Here is his version of the film. A five minute shot of a hypodermic needle. A five minute shot of Wurtzel's hairy pudenda. A five minute shot of her sleeping naked and stoned on the bed. She rises, gives the middle finger to the audience. Cue credits. See, less than twenty minutes to distill Wurtzel's whole life. And, oh yeah, Warhol's film would not have cast Ricci. Even Michelle Williams would have been better, and after seeing Ricci's pallid bosom, I'd take anything Williams or any other babe had to offer me cinematically. Ricci is almost the kiss of death for a film, and how she stays working is a mystery. Think of her performances in mediocre to bad films like Monster, Sleepy Hollow, and Woody Allen's Anything Else- also co-starring Jason Biggs, and now picture another actress in her role, and immediately the films could seem better, if not great. She is the female counterpart to banal, wooden, milquetoast actors like Tom Cruise and Leonardo Dicaprio.


There must have been a lot of background info that was left out of the movie. In fact, in the film, the girl, Lizzy, didn't even appear depressed. She just seemed like a girl that went out of control when she finally got to college, mainly from doing drugs and drinking alcohol. That seemed to be her problem, not mental illness. Sure, she had emotional problems because her dad left and she barely saw him as a child, and her mom seemed a little out there. But, the way she treated Noah and Ruby was just mean and I don't think caused by depression. She was very needed, which ran Rafe off, but she was like that because of her dad.

But, I think the main reason this movie never achieved a theater release is that not enough happens with the plot and the story is not written well.

FINAL VERDICT: Truthfully, I'd only recommend this if you are interested in seeing Ricci's first nude scene. Otherwise, it isn't very interesting.


I found it almost impossible to empathize with Ricci's character in this film. If she was supposed to be a depressive, I think the screenwriter and director neglected to research depressives before making this film because Ricci's character was more a depiction of a self-centered, worthless sh!tbag than a victim and survivor of depression.

The forced attempt at introspective narration was as ludicrous as the pained interactions between her and the people around her.

Sorry but I couldn't buy it. This is straight to video schlock. I'm glad I didn't pay to see this.


I am writing this review simply because I am a huge fan of the book, Prozac Nation, and was appalled by the film.

I think that if you hadn't read the book, you would have been lost watching the film, as it provided no real back story to Wurtzel's depression. There was no real mention of her childhood (her relationship with her father, her experiences at summer camp, her first therapists (in fact, the film gives the impression that she has never been in therapy until Dr. Sterling)...). That said, if you had read the book, you would have been confused by the amount of editing that had taken place.

I found the book to be a vivid portrayal of depression, highlighting Wurtzel's low points, and the experiences she had along the way. The film however, began at Harvard, and literally threw the audience straight in with no real explanation of what was going on.

Events that, in the book, were important (such as Wurtzel's miscarriage, her summer working in Dallas, her suicide attempt whilst on Prozac) were omitted from the film.

Also, this is pedantic, but Wurtzel did not lose her virginity to Noah. The suicide attempt that was shown in Sterling's office was completely different to the book. For a start, she actually overdosed on Mellaril, as opposed to the para-suicidal gesture shown in the film.

All in all, I would say that if you have read the book and enjoyed it/identified with it, then don't watch the film. Read 'More, Now, Again' (by the same author) instead. Or watch Girl, Interrupted.

The only redeeming feature was the performance by Anne Heche, who I believe portrayed Dr. Sterling very well. Christina Ricci was also good, though her performance seemed a little... stilted. Jessica Lange made for enjoyable viewing, but looked the opposite of how Wurtzel's mother is described in the book.

Conclusion? Don't bother.


I have a question for the writers and producers of "Prozac Nation": What is the root cause and what is the solution to the widespread problem of personal depression in America? In the moving performance of Christina Ricci as Liz Wurtzel, the film portrays a young woman with unlimited potential as a Harvard student and as a writer. But this is not a story of success, only one of self-destruction as we watch Liz bring misery into the lives everyone who comes in contact with her. The film examines divorce, family dysfunction, drugs, alcohol, and prescription medication as possible reasons for Liz's unhappiness. But none of those superficial explanations are satisfactory.

At some point in the film, it would have been helpful to suggest that Liz needs to take responsibility for her life and her problems. No light was shed on what the film alleged to be a runaway problem in "The United States of Depression." In the story, Liz had a caring therapist (Anne Heche), a caring roommate (Michele Williams), a caring boyfriend (Jason Biggs), and a troubled but caring parent (Jessica Lange). In a key scene in the film, Liz is lying in a hospital bed watching the break-up of the space shuttle Challenger. Instead of equating Challenger with Liz's life, the film should have used the image as a starting point for her healing and recovery.

This film reminded me of a generic made-for-cable "victim" film on the Lifetime network. An excellent cast was wasted, especially in the earnest performance of Christina Ricci. The real-life Elizabeth Wurtzel obviously found within herself the resources to cope with her depression and become a successful author. It is unfortunate that the film could not offer us even the slightest glimpse into her courageous spirit.


This film is just as bad as "The Birdman of Alcatraz". I do not refer to the acting but rather the premise of both films, which try to portray psychopathic criminals as heroic figures. Moreover it disturbs me when well respected, revered actors like Alan Alda (and Burt Lancaster) play such roles, because their status tends to lend credibility to the director's intent to elevate the film's subject, a societal outcast.

I was in junior high school during the last years of Caryl Chessman's life and his death penalty appeals and books were very much in the news. I remember the groundswell of opinion that the death penalty was wrong and Chessman was the victim.

Get a grip people. Read the history. Chessman was a criminal and sexual predator. He drove around the LA streets at night with a stolen police light in his vehicle. He stopped cars with attractive women inside under the ruse of making a traffic arrest; then abducted and raped the women. Rape is the worst trauma a woman can experience and many victims say they would prefer death to its horror and humiliation.

Chessman got exactly what he deserved, it just took a decade too long. No sympathy for the devil here.


Wealthy businessman's daughter, who as a young girl caught rheumatic fever and now suffers from a shortness of breath, discovers her marriage to a charming ne'er-do-well was arranged by daddy (whom she affectionately refers to as "Darling"); worse than that, she may in fact have only a few weeks left to live, leaving her husband free to marry her conniving romantic-rival. Pure bunk. Paul Osborn's screenplay (via Jerome Weidman's thin story) trots out the redundant flashbacks in the second-half instead of proceeding ahead with the plot, which submerges the already-soapy scenario in grim talk. Why go backwards when we can figure out what's happening for ourselves? This is a "woman's weeper" with no faith in its target audience, so simplistic is the set-up. Dorothy McGuire, swathed in furs for most of the picture, isn't a canny, clever heroine at all; when she's upset, she turns inward and stony. Upon realizing her marriage is basically a sham, she shrinks away from her husband like the consummate virgin (well, that's a possibility, she and Van Johnson sleep in separate beds after all!). Ruth Roman has the film's best moments as a society shark with her trap set for Van, but what exactly do these women see in him? Johnson can be charming when it's required, but put him in a melodramatic setting and he goes stony, too. MGM production values only so-so, however director Gottfried Reinhardt tries adding some visual flavor to the flashback segues and he attempts a lively pacing for the movie's initial half-hour. ** from ****


If I had never seen an episode of the original Avengers, with Blackman, Rigg, or Thorson, I would have appreciated this series more. While the cast did its best to sustain the action and interest of the scripts, I was just caught up in comparing the episodes to the original series. There was an expectation of Steed participating more in fight scenes, and the continuity seemed as though the writers were struggling to keep up with the actors. To be honest, I can't blame them for trying to resurrect the fans from the original series, but it just didn't work, as evidenced by the fact that it lasted one season. Watching Steed labor through this series reminded me of Gen. Macarthur when he said, 'Old soldiers never die, they just fade away!'


Comparisons to the original series are inevitable. It's a shame Diana Rigg left the original show in the 1960's due to mistreatment on the part of the producers, and MacNee probably regretted this as much as any fan - there's no telling how long the show might have lasted otherwise. Linda Thorson was OK as a replacement and her episodes still retained almost all of the quality and aspects of the Rigg episodes - only the Rigg/Macnee chemistry was lacking. The New Avengers should have been left on the shelf - a declining Macnee, an annoying Purdey, and a who the hell is this guy Gambit. Also, the humor was forced and poor - granted I only watched a few of the episodes, because that was all I COULD watch, but I think I got the idea. Try as many might and do, it's nearly impossible to resurrect an old show as a new format or movie.


'Volcano' is a B-movie at best, and at worst is more of a disaster that what it's supposed to be depicting. To be fair, you have to be prepared in any movie to suspend disbelief for one major concept. 'Volcano' asks you to suspend disbelief in science, human interaction, and common sense.

Tommy Lee Jones gets to be the studly-yet-1990s-sensitive head honcho of the Office of Emergency Management, and he's fine when he's not stuck with the stupid dialogue the script provides. However, Anne Heche gives a howlingly bad performance as a smart-ass geologist who becomes Roark's love interest (while the city is burning down, natch). Gaby Hoffman goes from Field of Dreams and American President to a turn as a whimpering, needy, and victim-for-life daughter of Jones. Don Cheadle gets to sit in a really coooool office and take Jones's phone calls, doing the job that in reality Roark would and should be doing.

Anyway, the movie really starts going downhill when Heche's geology partner gets sucked into a lava vent while they're breaking into the subway lines. It picks up speed when Jones starts suggesting that they use buses to dam the flow of the lava flowing down the street, Heche's geologist (who loves to lecture everyone about The Science Of Geology) being apparently oblivious to the fact that lava is hot and it melts metal, and rock, and a dead bus is unlikely to have much effect. It really starts to suck when the film introduces Rodney King-like racial tension between two bad actors dressed as cops and an angry black man who can't understand why the fire department is busy with this large river of flowing lava. But hey, in the end, the three of them will be working together to build a K-rail dam to stop the lava from eating up his neighborhood, even though the dam is built in the wrong direction and the material used wouldn't stop lava anyway. Besides, K-rails are hardly watertight, but I guess lava wouldn't think to poke its head through the gaps, not when Tommy Lee Jones is glaring at it. Don't even get me started on the stranded-subway-car subplot, where a tunnelful of hot lava is coming down but oddly enough, it's not too hot to attempt a rescue, it's not too smoky to see, and there aren't any poisonous gases so everyone can breathe. This must be LA Lava, or Lava Lite. You know, it eats cars but is eco-friendly.

There are moments of sheer camp here that almost make you wonder if this was meant to be a comedy. For instance, the two security guards packing up Hieronymus Bosch paintings have a completely meaningless and farcical conversation about weight, and at the end, no sooner does the little boy Roark/Jones rescued note that everyone looks the same while covered in ash, than a rainstorm breaks out and cleans everyone up -- and then the sun comes out and Heche says something along the lines of, "aw, shucks, Roark".

'Volcano' almost achieves Battlefield Earth status, but except for Heche no one approaches Travolta-like badness and the technical aspects are handled pretty well. If you are from the LA area as I am, it's kind of funny to think of a lava flow wiping out Wilshire Boulevard. I gave it a three for the effects and the little amount of tension you get from this.


Although this movie (and I use the term loosely) was made in 1997, we just watched it tonight for the first time. My husband commented that a Tommy Lee Jones movie that we'd never heard of made him a little apprehensive. I blithely watched anyway, certain that if Jones was in the movie, it must at least be worth two hours of my time. After all, he has been one of our go-to actors for years. Although Heche isn't one of my favorite actresses, I was additionally reassured by seeing another well-known face. The list of accomplished actors/actresses continued to grow, so I endured more and more of this film, certain that if I pushed through enough clichés and trite social statements, I would arrive victorious on the other side of the plot. Alas, there was no plot. It appeared to be burned by the ever-oozing lava of doom.

The characters were paper-thin. The plot was so chock full of holes that it literally distracted me from most of the special effects and acting in the movie. Was the fee for a brief consultation with an elementary science teacher too much for this film's budget? No acid rain...no toxic gasses (like sulfur or hydrochloride)...no deadly ash...no skin-searing heat just a few feet from the lava. Wow...it's the world's friendliest lava ever!

The events were no better than the characters. Each incident was so contrived and far-fetched...it's like the writers said "Okay, we need to get rid of the little girl NOW"...and poof, she's splashed by a lava bomb which burns her enough that she has to be carried to safety (not from the lava, but from her own helpless stupor)...but just moments later in the car she is in no apparent pain and soon after is running effortlessly through the (groan!) building that (oh no!) is about to be blown up. After enduring all of this, your reward is the line from the little boy at the end (about all the people looking the same)...which has got to be one of the worst movie lines I have ever heard. Even if it wasn't so painfully scripted, it was ridiculous timing for all the characters involved. Kid and cop aside, as if the mother would still be in the area and just needs to be pointed out because she just isn't speaking up...what...she's hoping to slink off into the shadows and get away from the little brat once and for all? I don't think so. Obviously the child's mother would be missing or dead - or yelling her head off to find her toddler.

The token black gangsta tough hoodlum with a secret soft spot versus the chip on his shoulder narrow minded cracker cop with a secret soft spot scene made my eyes bleed. Even if such pat characters existed, they wouldn't behave as the movie portrays them given the circumstances. Something about imminent fiery death and massive destruction tends to catch people off-guard, ya know?

There are too many canned movie moments like these to mention...really, it's just an embarrassing movie to watch. Those poor writers...where are they now?


As a geology student this movie depicts the ignorance of Hollywood. In the scene where the dog grabs the bone from inside of the burning house, it is less then a foot from lava which has an average temperature of 1,750 degrees Fahrenheit. This stupidity is witnessed again when "Stan" goes to save subway 4. His shoes are melting to the floor of the subway while the rest of the team is standing just feet away from the flowing lava. And to finish off this monstrosity of a film, they come up with the most illogical solution, stopping a lava flow with cement K rails. Earlier in the film a reporters voice can be heard saying that nothing can stop the flow fire fighters have tried cars and CEMENT. Common sense dictates this film is a preposterous and gross understatement of human knowledge.


This movie is a disaster within a disaster film. It is full of great action scenes, which are only meaningful if you throw away all sense of reality. Let's see, word to the wise, lava burns you; steam burns you. You can't stand next to lava. Diverting a minor lava flow is difficult, let alone a significant one. Scares me to think that some might actually believe what they saw in this movie.

Even worse is the significant amount of talent that went into making this film. I mean the acting is actually very good. The effects are above average. Hard to believe somebody read the scripts for this and allowed all this talent to be wasted. I guess my suggestion would be that if this movie is about to start on TV ... look away! It is like a train wreck: it is so awful that once you know what is coming, you just have to watch. Look away and spend your time on more meaningful content.


The story of a Volcano erupting downtown L.A. sounds like a nice plot for a disaster movie. This one though, is missed bigtime. The movie looks chaotic, has a storyline which is hard to follow or believe and the acting was very bad.

Im in agreement with a lot of comments that Lee Jones is only good at bossing people around as a chief in some particular field. In this one, he is heading the emergency office. Being chief of such an office it naturally is a good idea to bring along your daughter to dangerous scenes. Clever thinking. Ann Heche touching walls and walking in tunnels that suppose to be 678 degrees fahrenheit. Yea right. Aside from the bad acting those factual errors make the film look almost as silly as Armageddon. The only good point of this movie is that there is no Ben Affleck to make matters even worse. Avoid this movie at all costs.


Hahahahah Probably one of the funniest movies i've even seen. Obviously this isn't intentional though. It takes about half the movie for the main characters to realize what the big hilly thing is in the middle of the city is spewing hot red stuff, and the other half spent diverting the lave flow through the city using fire trucks (yer right). It certainly made me laugh. The acting makes Arnie look like a RSC thespian. It is amazing that films like this get commissioned. A more interesting version would be someone going near an active volcano and filming it, and would probably cost about £20 to make. ($40) I can see some guy pitching the film to a film company "well there's this big VOLCANO and it erupts in a CITY....pretty radical hey" If you can find it in the dollar bins, maybe worth buying as after watching this most other films would look good.


Volcano is set in Los Angeles where a minor earthquake has just hit, vacationing boss of the O.E.M. (the Offcie of Emergency Management) Mike Roark (Tommy Lee Jones) decides to cut his holiday short & go in, once there he sees that everything is alright but then drives off to the epicentre of the quake where seven underground workers have been killed by a fire or intense heat of some kind. Mike isn't sure what to think so he brings geologist Dr. Amy Barnes (Anne Heche) in to try & explain things, unfortunately a huge underground river of molten lava has been released after the quake & erupts at the La Brea Tar Pits sending the lava pouring out into the city streets engulfing anything & everything it touches in flames. Mike, his men & the emergency services have their work cut out trying to stop the river of lava & save as many lives as possible...

Directed by Mick Jackson this was the second big budget disaster flick revolving around the idea of an erupting Volcano during 1997 with Dante's Peak (1997) being released a mere two months or so before Volcano was & while Dante's peak is hardly any sort of masterpiece at least it's slightly better & more plausible than Volcano is. The script here is total nonsense & is not based in reality at all, underground rivers of lava that seem to appear & then disappear just as quick, various character's standing inches from a river of lava yet not being affected by the heat (when that guy is on the train the metal seats around him start melting but he remains perfectly fine, as far as I am aware human skin is not as heat resistant as metal, is it?) & it constantly happens, helicopters flying is clouds of ash (in reality it would be impossible), one simple blockade at the end of a street will stop the flowing lava (what about down the other streets & other directions?), being able to blow a perfect trench in a street & then blowing a huge building up to make a massive dam & when Kelly sees the lava heading towards her car she gets out just like anyone would but then for some reason just stands there & watches two firemen get burned to death & waits for her dad to save her even though by this stage her leg has caught fire, despite all those concrete blocks being placed together to make a barrier in less than twenty minutes the guy's do such a great job not one bit of molten lava manages to seep through & loads more besides like that massive building falling on Tommy Lee & his daughter yet then both being fine afterwards. The character's are awful too although they were not as clichéd as usual with no romance blossoming between Tommy Lee & Anne Heche & minimal city official's who try to shut Tommy Lee & Anne Heche up before the event labelling them scaremongers. There's a few badly written & at times embarrassing moral moments as Los Angeles pulls together, the black guy & that semi racist cop who warm to each other & by the end are wishing each other well & that little kid at the end when he says 'everyone looks the same' is cringe worthy & is surely a ham-fisted attempt & trying to say whatever colour we are we are still human beings & we can all get along in time of a crisis as it brings people together. Having said that I think Volcano is one of those so bad it's good films, it entertains & it moves along at a decent pace but just don't expect anything grounded in reality or any human drama either.

I suppose a film like Volcano could be seen as an updating of a 70's disaster film such as The Poseidon Adventure (1972) or Earthquake (1974) but on a huge budget with modern effects work. Speaking of the effects they are alright but none stand out that much & the set-pieces are also surprisingly forgettable, sure there are a few impressive explosions & a few OK river of lava flowing through Los Angeles effects but little else. Generally Volcano just isn't very exciting & while occasionally unintentionally funny & completely ridiculous it doesn't really work in the way the makers intended.

With a supposed budget of about $90,000,000 it opened to a little under $15,000,000 at the box-office, it looks alright & there's lots of fire but nothing stands out & Volcano is a pretty forgettable film overall. Filmed in Los Angeles I think most of the places featured here were shot at their real life locations. The cast go through the motions with some terrible dialogue & ridiculous set-pieces to contend with, Tommy Lee Jones deserves better than this.

Volcano is a bit of a disaster in both senses, it is a disaster themed film that ended up a bit of disaster itself. Worth it for a few unintentional laughs & the ridiculousness of it all but it's nothing great & I doubt I would ever want to see it again.


I saw this movie and I thought this is a stupid movie. What is even more stupid is that who had thought an idea that there should be a volcano in Los Angeles? The fact is that there are no volcanoes in Los Angeles. This movie should not be filmed in Los Angeles, it should be filmed in Honolulu Hawaii. Hawaii has volcanoes which is a real fact that this movie should be made in Hawaii's state capital. This movie should be filmed in Hawaii because this is the real idea and not in Los Angeles. There are earthquakes in Los Angeles, but there are no volcanoes. To be honest with you, this is unbelievable nonsense and very foolish. In conclusion, I will not bother with this movie because a volcano in Los Angeles is nothing but nonsense.


This film is all right, fairly silly and to be taken lightly. But what I can't stand are the numerous heroes and that boy's ILLEGALY SENTIMENTAL comment near the end: "look, they all look the same". Isn't that by far passing the good taste standards? I thought it was revolting, as were the heroic, unselfish acts by some of the people in this film. I'm not saying it won't happen like that, but zooming in on all the bravery like that makes my stomach churn.


Considering the subject matter, I thought that this film would at least be enjoyable, if stopping somewhat short of a masterpiece. I was wrong. I was still waiting for something to happen and it finished - I thought that the finale was the bit that happened before it got exciting. The only reason I gave it 2 instead of 1 is because the effects guys deserve some recognition.


I saw the trailer for this film before watching Titanic, and I must admit that it whetted my appetite. Volcano seemed to be quite spectacular and full of promise. But what a damp squib. Corny is not the word for the script, and the characterizations are often ludicrous. The stupid daughter is just beyond belief - she is supposed to be 13 not 4. But then the scientists,firemen and peripheral characters don't offer any more. This movie ranks just in front of Cruise II and Twister, but only because those 2 films are completely appalling. This does have some reasonable effects, but overall its a 1 out of 10. Don't waste your time


The scriptwriters, directors, and actors have lost sight of the cornerstone of a good story - the concept of suspension of disbelief. In Volcano, the concept goes up in smoke almost as quickly as the city. Contrary to earlier commentators, I much preferred Dantes Peak amongst the 97 vintage of volcano movies.


When I saw this movie, all I could think was: What a disaster! No I'm not talking about the volcano, but about the movie itself. I have seen a lot of movies, but this is certainly one of the worst ever. I don't care about the fact if a volcano erupting underneath downtown L.A. is possible or not. Perhaps it isn't, but even than this could have been a good movie... but it sure isn't and I'll explain you why.

I don't know how much lava flows out of an average volcano, but what I do know is that the volcano in this movie makes the Vesuvius, Etna and Mount Pinatubo together look like a little barbecue. I don't think there has ever been so much lava flowing out of a volcano as what we see in this film. I'm sure the director had a lot of money to spend on his movie, but I really wonder why he all spent it on the special effects and not on the script and the actors. I'm not saying that he should have hired a top cast, but this really is the opposite of what I would call good acting. Their performances are so unbelievably poor that it makes the entire movie even worse.

And what's wrong about the script you probably ask yourself. Well, can you tell me who comes up with the idea of people standing a few yards or even a few feet from the lava without getting burned or having to hide for the heath? Or people sinking in the earth when the flow of lava isn't even two foot high?

I'm sure I wouldn't be proud if I wrote such a script, but apparently there are script writers in Hollywood who don't mind about believability as long as it pays good money! VERY good money!!!

When you see the movie, you'll probably agree with me that this is one of Hollywood's worst disaster movies, not worth more than a 3/10.


This movie is a real waste of time and effort. The film lacks plot and depth. The visuals are decent but nothing to write home about. There are far better films out there.


Riotously cheesy lunacy about lava spewing from the La Brea tar pits in Los Angeles. Even if you attempt to suspend disbelief by ignoring this ludicrous premise, you'll still be howling with laughter at the inane dialog, nonsensical plot contrivances, and wildly reckless scientific plot holes that parade across the screen.

I have a theory: every successful actor is doomed to appear in at least one bad movie at some point in his/her career. This was Tommy Lee Jones's turn. Although he makes a decent effort, the script is just so pathetic even he goes down in flames (oops, sorry about that). Most of the supporting cast is also choked by the hackneyed writing; a few of the actors simply phone in their roles. Anne Heche deserves special Hall of Shame recognition for her awkward portrayal of a scientist. She is about as convincing in this role as Pee Wee Herman, and even he would have at least done a better acting job.

Since the scientific plot holes are too numerous to list here, I would instead suggest that you screen the film with friends, and have a game of "Find the scientific absurdities." The loser could be forced to listen to tapes of corny lines from the movie like "Everybody looks the same" over and over. Here's a sample of the kind of nonsense you can expect: a scheme to blow up a building is devised, engineered, and the dynamite set and detonated all within a space of about 20 minutes.

Let us not forget the obligatory disaster movie clichés: divorced dads, scientists who get ignored by everybody, obnoxious cops, tough street kids, bratty teenagers, greedy investors etc.; all are present and in abundance. The film also bashes you over the head with a relentless barrage of political correctness.

For fans of cheese and silliness only. All other viewers: beware.


A horrible mish mash of predictable story lines and toe-bendingly poor delivered PC clichés ad nauseam (races working together, the heroine being smart as well pretty, a guy sacrificing himself to save another life, a father/daughter relationship etc etc etc). The movie looks like something created for network television and should have probably stayed there. Even the gifted Tommy Lee Jones does not manage to salvage this BOMB. I urge you not to waste money or time on this cinematic ruin from the time when disaster-movies roamed Hollywood.

The two stars are given solely to the CGI-people and the PR-peoples' ability to get even one movie-goer to sit through it.


only if its the last thing yo do and your humour is evaporated should you ever attempt to watch this. If you do, watch it alone invite no one, they will never return to watch another movie with you. It might be an excellent tool for that very purpose, invite people you want to get rid of in your life.

Apparently I need to write more about his film in order to qualify as a review. This is sweet irony for this film it really does sum it up perfectly. after wasting my time it wastes more of your time. IT does have a function I take it all back.

I recommend this film, watch it, its provocative, really go ahead watch it.


When the film started I got the feeling this was going to be something special. The acting and camera work were undoubtedly good. I also liked the characters and could have grown to empathise with them. The film had a good atmosphere and there was a hint of fantasy.

However, as the film went on, the plot never appeared to takeoff and just rolled on scene by scene. I was unable to understand the connection between the stories. All I could see was the characters occasionally bumping into each other and references to ships in bottles. Without that connection, I was just left with a few unremarkable short stories.

Am surprised it did so well at Cannes


I went to see this because I'd never seen Tel-Aviv, where the story is set. I was disappointed, since it doesn't offer many views of Israel's largest metropolis. It's also pretentiousone of those movies that leaves you guessing at its meaning until you ultimately give up with a shrug of the shoulders.

The main protagonist is Batya, a woman in her twenties' who works as a waitress at catered weddings. Her parents evidently don't care about her very much, and when a little girl walks out of the sea with an inflatable ring around her, Batya feels compelled to take care of her. The little girl doesn't speak, and Batya can't give her to social services because it's the weekend and the agency is closed. So she takes her back to her apartment with the leaky roof, and when it comes time to work in the evening, she has to take the little girl with her. The boss is very unhappy about this and other shortcomings in Batya's work performance.

Another main character is Keren, who is getting married. At her wedding party (where Batya is of course working), she breaks her leg climbing out of a ladies' room cubicle whose door won't open, and so she and her new husband cannot take the Caribbean vacation they've planned. They end up in a dingy hotel on the seafront without a view. It smells bad, there is noise from the traffic, and Keren is complaining all the time. Her husband meets a strangely attractive older woman  a writer  who is also staying in the hotel, and Keren worries that he has slept with this stranger.

The third main character is a Filipino woman named Joy who looks after old people. The old woman she is hired to care for is very crabby and speaks no English, only German and Hebrew. Joy speaks English but no Hebrew or German. Joy is mostly concerned with how her son is doing back in the Philippines, and wants to buy him a toy boat, as he has asked. She finds the perfect boat in a store and plans to buy it. The daughter of the old woman, who hired Joy, is an actress appearing in some sort of post-modern "physical theater" adaptation of Hamlet, and does not get along with her mother.

The way in which these three storieswhich intersect momentarilyresolve themselves is presumably supposed to mean something profound. I didn't get it. There is a fantasy element to Batya's relationship with the little girl, and maybe Batya's non-existent relationship with her parents is somehow inverted in this relationship. When Joy sees the toy boat in the shop window, there is a strange effect used where the little sails billow as if blown by the wind, and they do this as if they are on the scale of a real-life ship. Keren draws the outline of a bottle around a ship that is on a brochure cover in the hotel room, and a narration of the strange woman's poetry mentions a ship in a bottle. But what does all this mean? I thought about it for a while and realized I wasn't going to lose any sleep in the process. If anyone out there has a clear idea of what it's all about, maybe they can fill me in.


The director is sweet, as is his co-directing wife Shira Geffen, but their movie sucks. It has its moments (and some pretty girls), but there is too much of everything: "Amélie" meets "Breaking the waves" meets "Pauline at the beach". You walk away wanting to know more about the wedding photographer, and about the girl who likes it best when nothing happens, be it in movies or in real life. Instead, you get a suicidal writer, a neurotic actress and an illegal-immigrant-come-social-worker with a heart of gold. It feels like there's more than one truly touching story hidden in the script, but at face value it's a truckload of wasted story lines and sentimental bullshit. Hard to sit out as it is.


The world now seems to be in an odd stage of downsizing, in which objects such as DVD and CD players are steadily decreasing in size. It is obviously much cooler to have a smaller iPod than a larger one. This is not so with theater screens, as is the case with the IMAX, the enormous, widely-known theater system that has stunned audiences upon its release, and to this day. As long as the material's right.

The main problem with 'Magnificent Desolation: Walking on the Moon 3D" is that it uses the huge screen as its main advantage. It is dull, uninformative, and relentlessly eager to please and amaze us with its corny special effects and inspiring quotes from famous names such as Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin. Another problem with the film is that it doesn't even take the time to sit down and interview those lucky few who have had such an extraordinary experience as to have been to the moon. Instead, the writers have simply pressed COPY and PASTE and hired famous voices such as Morgan Freeman, Bill Paxton, and Matt Damon to imitate their famous quotes. This tactic is unrelentingly repetitive and tedious.

I'd say without one moment's hesitation that I didn't learn one piece of information from the film that I didn't already know.

And it repeatedly insisted on irritating the crap out of me with its insistent sentimentality. Every three minutes there seems to be a cue for Tom Hanks' voice to say something like "Without the contributions of these brave men and women..." Watching the film is like watching a bad commercial. For forty agonizing minutes.

1/4


Well, This was my first IMAX experience so I was pretty blown away about that, primarily; although with hindsight, I can't help wishing that it had been some other (less monochrome)film.

Magnificent Desolation very much had the "Programme for Schools" feel the way it listed all the astronauts and this made it feel a LOT like reading National Geographic Magazine in 3D. Weirdly it actually had a very two dimensional quality that only occasionally exploded into reality and a lot of time it felt like some PowerPoint Presentation. There was a moment in the film when an unnoticed abyss opens; seemingly at your feel, that had a bit of a WOW factor but to be honest, that may have had more to do with me being an IMAX virgin.

The commentary, provided by Tom Hanks, I personally found very, (what's a nice way to put it??) "flag-wavingly nationalistic" which didn't go down too well in central London, judging by remarks overheard as we left.

Over all, I loved the IMAX experience, but dearly wish a different film had been on on that day. The Moon isn't a particularly colourful subject and to be honest, a lot of the 3D effects were lost in the monochrome scenery. All that would have been well, were it not for the documentary inserts and distractions like the interviews with American schoolchildren which spoiled it a bit


You'd think a movie about incestuous sisters who eventually murder their employer couldn't help but be gripping, but then you'd be wrong.

There is no plot. There is no character development. There is no redeeming visual beauty.

This movie is a waste of time. The exploration of how the relationship between the sisters develops is nil, their sexuality is never anything but a grotesque, the class relationships are glossed over, and employer is a silly caricature.

Ponderous silences and period clothing do not equal depth of meaning.


"Tragic Hero" is a film that is most definitely trying to emulate the classic Godfather films, focusing on family, crime, loyalty, and revenge. Also, this is part of a two part series as The Godfather also was (at the time). However, this film comes nowhere near the level of those classic films and actually fairs worse than other Triad thrillers being released in Hong Kong at the time.

One reason is the acting. With the exception of Chow Yun Fat, the acting is generally over the top and unbelievable. The audience tends to find the proceedings humorous simply because the actors' inability to maintain any degree of seriousness. As a result, we find the film not truly emotionally involving or intense since we don't particularly care what occurs with these characters.

Another reason is its lack of focus. The narrative tries to incorporate many different story elements into the film, but this results in portions of the movie becoming underdeveloped as well as lacking any real sense of coherency. The audience sometimes becomes lost at the proceedings we are viewing, not knowing what the character's motivations are.

The film's climax does contain a decent gun fight, but again since we don't care about the characters, we don't care who lives or who dies; The scene loses it's intensity and suspense because of this. The other action set pieces are rather mundane in nature, with a feeling of it being too controlled rather than free flowing.

In general, this is a strictly average film and isn't recommended to the general film viewer... Only hard core genre enthusiasts and fans of Chow Yun Fat should consider this film for viewing.


Danny Lee's performance as a wisecracking cop is the only spot of interest in this film, even though it has an excellent cast including Chow Yun-Fat, Carina Lau, Andy Lau, Shing Fui-On and Alex Man. CYF plays a triad boss who wants to settle down to a life of peace and plenty but Alex Man, a total psycho who has a big grudge against CYF, won't let him. CYF tries to escape to Malacca but to no avail. After his family is blown to bits, his cronies dead or turncoat, wounded and broke, CYF returns to Hong Kong to get into some serious revenge.

It sounds a lot better than it is. CYF is well-dressed and handsome, looks pained, grimaces and cries on cue, but somehow or another you just don't care. Andy Lau looks great, but that's about it. Carina Lau has a tiny, tiny little part which was nice, but she gets a bullet in the head early on so that ends that. Alex Man is a cartoon villain he's so over-the-top which at times can be intriguing but the writing here is so flat that he just comes across as a garden-variety nut.

Danny Lee is great though - too bad he's only a small blip on the screen of this dark (literally) and essentially boring movie.

Rent it, don't buy it. Or just skip it altogether.

This is the sequel to "Rich And Famous", even though it apparently was filmed simultaneously; it was released first because of CYF's boxoffice power.


"Black Vengeance" is an alternate title for "Ying hung ho hon" AKA "Tragic Hero" (1987). I have just seen this on VHS, together with the first part of the story, "Gong woo ching" ("Rich and Famous"), also 1987. (The poster and 2 stills featured on the page are for a 4-DVD set of movies starring Rod Perry (The Black Gestapo), Fred Williamson (Black Cobra 2), Richard Lawson (Black Fist). The fourth movie is called "The Black Six"). Strangely, while the characters retain their original names in "Rich and Famous", in "Black Vengeance" Chow Yun-Fat's character is named Eddie Shaw, Alex Man (Man Tze Leung) is Harry, and Andy Lau is called Johnny. Also confusing is the fact that 1994 is given as the copyright dates on both films. Perhaps that was the year they were American-dubbed. According to the release dates given on IMDb "Tragic Hero" was released before "Rich and Famous". Was there any reason for releasing the sequel first? Despite some users' comments, I enjoyed these films, although they aren't among CYF's best such as "The Killer" and "Hard-Boiled" which are truly astonishing. However,if one day I come across a 2-DVD set of "Rich and Famous" and "Tragic Hero" I won't hesitate to buy it. Hopefully, these comments about "Black Vengeance" clear up, which was also for me, a mystery as to where it belonged in Chow Yun-Fat's filmography.


This is a documentary about homeless women. It was interesting in the sense that this focused on women who are engaged socially - having jobs and lasting friendships - but are in situations where they can not afford housing.

I found some of the women covered to be interesting, but there was little focus or progression in the story. The direction and editing failed to maintain my attention. There were differences in the stories of these women, of course, but the message was essentially the same and could have been told by focusing on any one of them in more depth.

I made it to the end of the movie, but it was a rather boring journey.


(This review is based on the English language version)

Orson Welles' legendary unfinished epic was just that - unfinished. It should have been left as such, not thrown together in this clumsy, boring compilation of whatever material was available.

While I'm sure it was done with the best of intentions, the filmmakers have not only failed to do justice to Welles' vision, they've also managed to discredit it by inflicting this version upon audiences.

The first thing that strikes the viewer is the amateurish quality of the audio. Not only are the newly dubbed voices rather poor performances, they're also inconsistent - Welles' original recordings (using his own voice, as he often did) have been retained in a handful of scenes, & they don't match at all. There hasn't been the slightest attempt at consistency. Add to that an extremely empty sound mix which has only a bare minimum of sound effects & atmos - a long sequence during a huge festival (including the running of the bulls) sounds like it was recorded in a deserted suburban street with about three people making the sound of a crowd that's meant to be in the thousands.

However, the real problem is the unavoidable fact that 'Don Quixote' was incomplete, & it's glaringly obvious from watching this. The film consists of a handful of scenes strung together & dragged out to ridiculous lengths just to make up the running time. Case in point - the sequence where Sancho searches for Don Quixote in the city goes on forever. It's just Sancho approaching people in the crowd, asking them the same questions over & over again - there is no way that Welles could ever have intended using every single take in its entirety, but that's what appears here. It lasts over twelve minutes, when, in fact, it would most likely have lasted about two minutes absolute maximum in a proper finished version of the film.

While the start of the film is relatively complete & rather well done, the rest has massive holes which simply can't be filled with endless overlay of Spanish countryside & still more shots of Don Quixote & Sancho going back & forth. There's also no ending. No resolution, no conclusion, no punchline, no point.

Although there is material in private collections that was unavailable to the filmmakers, that couldn't possibly account for what would be required to make this into a complete, coherent work. Welles simply didn't complete shooting, largely due to the fact that his lead actor died before they could finish.

However, putting aside the fact that it wasn't complete, & never could be, one would think that just seeing a collection of footage from this masterpiece that might have been would be enough. Unfortunately, by putting it all together in such a slipshod manner, one is left with a very negative impression of the film overall. In particular, what was clearly a terrific performance from Akim Tamiroff as Sancho is utterly ruined with the new voice & with long, drawn out scenes that eventually cause him to be simply irritating.

Orson Welles' vision for this film was something far more ambitious & complex than a simple retelling of the story of Don Quixote, but that's what has been attempted here, & as such, the point is lost. The only person who could have assembled all the material into anything worthwhile would have been Welles himself, & he didn't.

The footage could have been put to far better use in a documentary chronicling the whole saga of Welles trying to make the film. Welles himself even came up with the perfect title for such a doco: "When Are You Going To Finish Don Quixote?"


An atrocious offense to the memory and genius of Welles, this senseless assemblage of self-indulgent improvisation on a grand theme should have been locked up in storage along with a number of other unfinished Welles' projects no one has ever seen. Now we know why! To add additional insult to prior injury, the appalling English language dubbing by amateur America dubbing actors and even the great man himself only heightens all the sloppy mistakes in story-telling and construction. It's as if every weekend some good hearted Spanish soul gave Orson a few pesos, a 35mm camera and some short-ends of negative film left over from some other production and told Welles to drive out to the Spanish countryside and just keeping shooting anything and everything until the film stock ran out. It's true that if Orson had really shaped this film himself instead the notorious Jesus Franco, he might have thrown out 85% of what he shot, but we will never know. As Welles never took the time to edit his own work here, and somewhere along the way he or his heirs sanctioned someone else to do so, he is not entirely blameless for the debacle. Those who wish to prove that in his early days Welles was the luckiest of young men because he surrounded himself with the likes of John Houseman, Herman Mankewiecz, Greg Toland, Bernard Hermann and Robert Wise need no better proof of his adult inadequacies than this mess of a film. In his sad old age Welles was capable of doing anything when he needed a few bucks or pesos, including selling his artistic soul. The devil certainly got his due with this one!


This film is terrible, and don't blame Jesus Franco, because its not his fault.

This film was shot silent over many years by Welles as he got the money to bring a crew and the actors together to do some shooting. How much film Welles actually shot is not clear, although not all of the film or all of the sequences are here since several "key" sequences, such as Quixote in a movie theater, are in the hands of collectors or backers who wouldn't give them up. The film here is just under two hours and I would be hard pressed to imagine it ever really working at any length. I'm of the opinion, based on several comments that Welles made before his death, that he never really intended to release the film, but was putting it together as a personal toy.

What exists here is for the most part is beautifully shot, but dramatically dead. Very little happens for the first hour other than Quixote and Sancho wandering around the country side. Dull would be a kind description of the material. In the second hour Quixote ends up in modern Spain and in a series of not very good sequences deals with everyday life. This isn't to say that there isn't a few nice moments, the windmill and the chicken sequences are quite good, but mostly this is a vast waste of film and time.

"Completed" by Jesus Franco, who was Welles' assistant director on the vastly superior Chimes at Midnight, we have a bunch of film fragments that have been put together as best as possible. Many people have crucified Franco as having been the reason the film stinks, but frankly one can not make a good movie from crap material. One critic has gone on record as having seen a different cut of the film in the 1970's, which meant that Franco made this version up on his own and ruined it. While that maybe true, I've run across stories of Welles cutting and re-cutting the film many many times over the years since he could never get it right.

This film is terrible no matter how you slice it.

Ultimately I'm left wondering just how good a film maker Welles was. Aside from Citizen Kane almost all of his films have been plagued by lack of budget or interfered with so we are left with the excuse that many of his films "would have been better if only...". How do we know? How can we know? Perhaps Welles was a man of less talent than we thought and many of his borderline films just aren't that good, and never would have been. While this is no place to argue the place of Welles in film history, the surviving material of Don Quixote, assuming it approximates what Welles intended (I think it does), is a good case for rethinking how we view the man and his work.

4 out of 10 for the good sequences (though 2 out of 10 is probably closer to reality)


Are we serious??? I mean wow ... just, wow. I think I saw this flick in an old issue of War Journal. This is pathetic, originality is completely dead, instead of trying to formulate a new idea what we receive is a bland re-do of an old plot line and to "switch it up" we just change the gender or race of the original character it's moronic and everyone should be sick and tired of seeing it ... but I guess this is just a rant and will most likely fall on deaf ears to engrossed with the sound of another turd hitting the toilet water like the best western since 3:10 to Yuma ... (wait for it)... 3:10 to Yuma! Thank You Hollywood for killing film as an art form and turning it into a commercial barrage of neo-pop junk and blatant retardation ... wonderful!!!


The Brave One seems to indicate that the main character, of course, is brave. I'd disagree. The more brave thing to do in a situation like the one that happens to her- getting brutally beaten along with her fiancée who doesn't live another day from it- is to go after the criminals without resorting to a total distorted view of society. Jodie Foster's character, Erica, is a radio personality who's niche is walking the streets and recording what goes on. We're given no real depth aside from 'she had someone she loved, he died, the police don't pursue it, she gets a gun, yada-yada-yada, she gets somewhat but not really involved with the lead detective' into the character, and so were left with something leftover from past movies: the vigilante code of justice, where taking the power in one's own hands is all there is. But we're never too sure if Erica is sane or not, if the filmmakers take a position one way or another (that is until the end, which is such a stupid message to take anyway, dog included as overbearing metaphor), while making the New York City of today, which has become significantly safer than, say, twenty years ago, look like you'll get knifed or beaten if you go down just the right alley or just sit alone on a subway car.

There could even be a somewhat better movie in the midst of all of this- perhaps just in the undercooked subplot with Terence Howard's detective, who is involved in some custody battle of a child that isn't his and a woman who he's not linked to and a step-father who, I don't know what aside from owning parking lots and being a bad dude- but we're left to a script that's both ham-fisted and disjointed with logic. It becomes laughable, for example, to see that at first the logical side- of Erica unable to really shoot properly, as seen in her first shooting in a convenience store at the convenient moment of a robbery of a wife by the husband- and then giving way to the illogical of her crack-shot at shooting at a pimp driving a car head on at her and killing him and ducking just in time to not get run over. It doesn't help that Jordon's style with the camera becomes a little more than insufferable: it's called a stedi-cam for a *reason*, not because it can weave in and out.

Ironically, the script and direction become very good, or rather work the best they can under the desired circumstances: when looking at the actual beating scene under the bridge, caught between a video-taped point of view by one of the criminals by the regular film cam in a pace that is perfectly disorienting. And when Erica first comes back on the air to her radio show, and she freezes up trying to do her old shtick, and speaks out a 'from-the-heart' about how afraid she is- this scene, from Foster's performance, to the clear direction and script, is the best scene in the film. But aside from that, there's just a lot of posturing into a psychology that's flimsy: is she a De Niro in Taxi Driver or a Bronson in Death Wish? We have her narration over scenes, some of it doesn't have to do at all with her radio show, observing how disgusted she is with walking around at night, nothing to do but her self-imposed task of cleaning up the streets. But unlike Death Wish, a movie that held more ambiguity and never held an answer at the end in a revenge scenario, the path of endless violence just heeds to a message, one that won't be news to anyone who's seen a second of Lifetime movie-of-the-week melodrama.

The actors make do with what's given, and in the end it becomes much more frustrating trying to stay with the anticipated, the hackneyed plot turns, and the plain old inexplicable (plus the unintentionally hilarious, like a few expletives shouted by Howard after getting shot in one scene), and the temptation to walk out grows stronger and stronger. It's a very problematic picture, with only a few moments of genuine interest and clear-headed convention-bending.


I don't usually like to comment on the acting in a movie, because it is the one thing that people who have agenda against a film will go after. In this movie, I will make an exception. The acting in this film are below average all around. I mean halfway into the film, I wonder how the hell did the producer and/or the director gets around casting such an ensemble of people who can't act. Even-though the production value was good, the ill written story just compounded on top of the bad performance of the actors, and there is even a half-hearted attempts to a twist to the ending of the movie, which ends up quite confusing. Is all the Spanish horror films this disappointing?


The major flaw in this Spanish slasher/shocker is within it's script. For the first half hour it's an okay effort, building some suspense and an atmosphere of fear and dread. We even get some nice killings too! Then it goes completely downhill and turns into a whole catalog of "your basic slasher clichés". I must admit that I was quite disappointed because the trailer promised so much more. The final thirty minutes consists of some killings and a lot of running around in an abandoned convent. It should have been so much better (although the final scenes in the flooded room is quite okay)!

First of all, we have the dialog. It's awful most of the time (there was quite a few giggles in the audience here and there when I saw it) and merely adequate elsewhere. It is also barely audible during a lot of scenes, drowning under the pressure of sound effects and the soundtrack (however that might not be such a bad thing after all considering the stupid lines we have to listen to!). There is one line in the whole movie that makes a reference to the "I know what you did last summer"-movies, indicating that the film makers wrote it all as one big joke, but I doubt it.

And the ending...well, some will hate it, others will dig it. For me, it was mostly a question of the former because the final twist comes from out of nowhere! If the audience had been given some clues to the girls mental status, I might have thought otherwise. It also throws all logic out of the window, because the murderer could never had been in place for some of the kills! But as an avid horror fan I have learned to live with these inconsistencies in Spanish and Italian movies.

But all is not bad. The movie has a big budget appearance, mainly due to the excellent cinematography (the scenes from past times really shines here), tight editing and an atmospheric soundtrack. Even though most of the actors are pretty bad, Anita Briem is an exception, making the most of what she has to work with. Real screen presence!

And, like I mentioned before, the killings are gory enough for the fans of such stuff and they are usually accompanied by very good special effects involving images of water (but the "water theme" tends to get tiresome in the end though).

So, to end this review, it's a movie that is quite fun in a "so-bad-it's-good" kind of way and it's also pleasing to the eye. But don't expect too much because it doesn't deliver as you probably think it will, judging from trailer and plot descriptions.


I thought this movie'd be totally different than just another teen-slasher. Well I was totally wrong. There's a liquid nun coming out of the toilet seat and something really odd. I know that Spanish culture is a bit different and their movies too, but I didn't expect to see a fake Hollywood film. They certainly faked it pretty well though. Why'd they make a movie without any new aspects? This is just plain boring and it'd been done totally without any imagination.

I thought that having a nun as the bad guy in the movie'd be something really original. It turned out to be a teen slasher. If this'd been done ten years ago then it'd have been something new.

I can't recommend this movie for anyone but it certainly has some comedy value! It's like a horror parody in some points.


Six students at a convent do the unthinkable - kill a nun who was overbearing. Now, eighteen years later, the nun's spirit is back and getting revenge for her murder.

Yea, basically that's the short of it. There's more to it than that, but I still have no clue what it is. The only really cool thing is the effects on the spiritual nun, as I was pretty impressed for being a more low-budget flick. I'm also confused as to whether or not it's in English. Most of the actors are Italian, and even the title here is in Italian, yet they spoke English in the film (I think, or it might've been dubbed, I still can't tell).

Anyway, the real premise of the film is pretty idiotic, and the ending not only doesn't make sense, it...well...doesn't make sense.


Review: Nunsploitation films. They've been around since forever. A few that pop to mind are the Mexican devil worshiping movie Alucarda, Night of the Demons 2, The Convent and of course Dante Tomasellis Desecration. Cant blame somebody for trying to exploit a religious/holy image and twisting it around to make it scary. If done right, it works. Here comes the most recent addition to the nunsploitation sub-genre simply titled The Nun.

The story is about this group of girls that live in a Catholic school. In this school there's a Nun who is particularly cruel to one of the girls. The girls acting in self defense against the abusive nun accidentally kill her and then decide to bury her and tell no one. Fast forward 18 years later and the nun is back searching for revenge from those who killed her.

This movie was produced by Brian Yuznas Fantastic Factory. You know, the company that makes horror movies in Spain. Need a reminder of the kind of movies that this company churns out? Well heres a small reminder: Arachnid, Darkness, Romasanta: The Werewolf Hunt, Rottweiler. You get the picture. About the only really good movie that this company has produced (in my opinion) was Stuart Gordons Dagon. Thats it. Oh no, wait, I believe they also produced the excellent Christian Bale vehicle The Machinist. But thats it. So when I consciously rented this movie, I knew I wasn't going to watch anything that was mind blowingly good. Still, with all that mental preparation I was disappointed.

One of the only good things this movie has going for it is its slick look. The movie has some nice cinematography. It doesn't look like a cheap horror film. The movies special effects were alright, with The Nun being able to travel through water. Well, that was an image that lended it self for some cool fx moments that sometimes scratched into cheesy territory but sometimes were cool enough to watch. I dug that scene with the Nun hurling herself at people like a bucket of water. Its not a particularly deadly move, but it made for a cool visual. There's some gore here but not a lot of it. One particular scene involving an elevator death was cool, but sadly the movie hit its peak with that scene. And it was only half way through. After that, nothing really cool happens and the movie deludes into an incredible borefest.

The movie just turns into The Nun popping up every now and then to give us a boo scare, she would kill someone and then CUT! We get back to the characters talking crap, going through rooms, opening doors, you get the drill. And I just personally hate it when a horror movie turns into that. People opening doors and going into rooms. Boring! And when the characters do talk its terrible dialog. In one particularly stupid scene a character decides right out of the blue that the nun turns into flesh and blood whenever she is in the water so thats they way to go to try and kill her. And everyone just says OK! And they all elaborate this plan to kill the nun in a water tank. Now, who gave that guy this info and why did the others just take it for granted? Who the hell knows, but its scenes like that that make the movie look stupid.

And yet another thing that got in the way of my enjoyment of this film was the fact that they used Spanish actors who have a very thick accent. When they try to speak English its very hard to make out what the hell they are trying to say. Id prefer to have them be dubbed then try and figure out what they are saying and become frustrated. The fact that this DVD has no English subtitles didn't help matters either.

So in conclusion, this is a movie that has some slick visuals, nice sound effects but a terrible terrible script. I guess this just goes to show that you might have the biggest budget or the best special effects, but if your movie has a bad script with terrible characters and situations that your audience cant connect with, then you've still got a bad movie. Such was the case with The NUN.

If you want to have some real fun with evil nuns, rent any of the films I mentioned at the beginning of this review. Now, as for the makers of this film, they should go say ten hail maries and light fifty candles to their saint of choice to see if they'll be forgiven for making this sinfully terrible film.

Rating: 2 out of 5.


The headline describes it exactly. This dribble of a film was nothing more than the typical 'group of teens killed someone accidentally now that someone is haunting/killing them off 20 years later' crap that has been shoved down our throats for decades. The only twist is instead of an angry ex-classmate or lovable psycho/loser, it was a nun. Nun wants to eliminate the sin from the girls, blah blah, girls accidentally/purposely drown the nun, blah blah, nun haunts the girls, people die, movie ends. The only thing that made this watchable were the death scenes, which were pretty cool (especially the one with the elevator door ripping off this fat lady's arms) but even they couldn't make this a great movie. Brian Yuzna should hang his head for attaching himself to this refuse. I'm sure glad I rented it and didn't buy it, or I'd be furious beyond belief. If you want a nunsploitation flick to please the senses, go watch Demonia or something. Stay away from this garbage.


I didn't buy this, I didn't rent this, it was on PPV and someone burned a copy of it and loaned it to me, so at least I wasted no money on it. For someone that did Darkness, the Nameless, Devil's Backbone, this is a pretty lame film. Seems to have something to do with a bunch of girls that were at a convent back in the day and now they're all grown up and they're being pursued and killed one by one by a nun that comes out of the kitchen sink, the toilet, and even manages to negotiate the revolving doors in a hotel. And what makes this nun so mean and nasty (and wet?) I dunno, this was so boring that at some point about halfway through I just stopped it, put it away, and watched something else. Wasn't even interested in finding out, really. Oh sure, there's some lovely young ladies to look at but hey, are two of them lesbians? I guess, there's a picture on the bedside table of one young lady's bedroom and what self-respecting horror movie wouldn't be complete these days without a lesbian couple? Yeah whatever. 2 out of 10, if you want to see a worthwhile nun horror movie try "Desecration", "Dead Waters", or "The Convent" (and that's the one with Adrienne Barbeau, by the way, not the one with John Malkovich).


I am a huge horror fan, particularly Spanish horror. This film had so many possibilities to be good. It's a marvelous idea, a vigilante ghost nun, as most of what has come out of Jaume Balangueró's mind. Both visual and sound effects were also pretty good. But everything was shamefully spoiled by bad direction, awful casting and a painfully bad (exposition, exposition!) script. Too bad. Maybe Balangueró should write and direct himself a remake...

Moreover, I don't really understand why this had to be spoken in English by actors who can't really speak English (and when they do, they do it so bad it just makes their performances even more fake). If you look at contemporary Spanish horror films like El Orfanato or Rec, the performances are totally in tune with this type of stylish ghost story - and that is being realistic, being believable as someone like ourselves, like real people, because that is the only way horror achieves it's goal. Unfortunately, everything failed in La Monja.


The movie is nothing extraordinary. As a matter of fact, it is an insult to the horror genre. Nothing about it borders on scary... not even close to the threshold of scary...

It's just another case of "another teenage horror movie"-seen one and you've seen em all. First few minutes in the movie and you'll know what will happen next. The worst part is, the script is blunter than the most recent installment of scary movie. Would have been better if it's written in Spanish. And don't get me started with the inside jokes and punchlines.

Though i will give a little credit for the special effects. But trust me, like any other Hollywood made horror movie, CGI's and special effects has little or no effect to a horror movie's ability to scare. In fact, it makes it worse.

Between the fresh faced Anita Briem and the spooky location, there's not much to see in this movie.


The only good thing of this movie is its final twist. In 97 minutes of film we can only save one single idea, which was totally wasted in this movie I must say! For more than 90 minutes this film is just a collection of clichés, bad acting, stupid ideas and disclosures, complete lack of suspense, stupid deaths, terrible special effects; all this in a pathetic and unoriginal plot until the last three minutes, where, FINALLY, a good idea appeared! It's nothing outstanding or an extremely original idea, but, at least was a "decent" good idea, the only one the entire movie has! I won't spoil it, but I must say I think that idea with a better plot, better FX and, definitely, a better acting, would turn into a good film. If you watch this movie and can stand it until the end you will know what it is


Well, first of all, excuse me for the lame pun in the title. I was browsing for movies to rent the other day and saw this. I heard something about this so I picked it up and looked on the back and there was a short little review blurb on it from John Fallon AKA Arrow in the Head! At that moment I thought "Well if he likes it then I gotta like it!" So I rented it and just finally got around to watching it last night (college keeps me so busy). Oh and I might wanna add that I read a little of Arrow's review and it turns out that out of 4 stars he gave it 1 and a half. So my expectations from this movie went from very high to iffy. Well after watching this, I once again agree with Arrow (and turns out that quote from the review was the only positive thing he said about that!) Wow, did this film stink or what? Where do I begin with why it did so? Well, the film was so dull in my opinion. Not even the cool gore bits excited me and when a decapitation doesn't excite you in a movie, that's bad! The characters I hated a lot and from the beginning I could tell who would die and who wouldn't. Actually the film proved me wrong at some points, but the worst thing is that one particular character I wanted to die didn't! What the heck? And the chemistry between the main girl and the guy she met? Didn't feel it. He obviously was just there to be eye candy and give her a love interest, otherwise I thought he was a waste! And as a horror fan I should know that doing the "dumb horror movie" sometimes gotta happen or else there wouldn't be much of a movie, but the ones in here ticked me off! Hello? Why are you making out in the room of the killer nun when you should be on the lookout from her? And it was done by the supposedly smarter characters no less. The twist....ah, it would have been alright, if it hadn't been done a billion times and I didn't have to sit through this wast of film to reach that point! My main point: Stupid movie that sucked me in with some words of my favorite (actually my only favorite) movie critic. Jerks!


Movies like this make me wonder what modern horror would be like if someone had (mercifully, for movie fans) put an end to M. Night Shyamalan inside the womb. This garbage is a prime example of what kind of lame, random, uninspired, last minute, generic plot twists have become the norm since movies like "The Sixth Sense" and "The Others" were released. This was an okay movie until the writers took a dump all over whatever of the mediocre script they had written, and decided, "Hey, here's an interesting idea: Lets throw in a wacky twist at the end and make the main character the murderer! That'll throw the audience for a loop!" What an original idea.


I can't believe they even released such a movie. The only good acting came from the water in the movie. This has to be one of worst (if not the worst) movie I have ever seen.

The only scary part of the movie is the bad acting, me giving this movie a 1 is me being to kind, this movie deserve a 0.

The storyline, and if you can call it the plot of the movie, seems to have been written by an high school kid. Ofcaurse you have to ask yourself if it may have been better with better actors in it.

Do yourself a favor, wait for it to show on TV.

AND EVEN THEN WATCHING IT WILL BE A WAST OF TIME.


The Nun is a revenge picture whereby a very strict nun is killed by her rebellious trailer trash charges and comes back years later to get even when the now adults visit their old school. Story line is predictable in spades and will hold no surprises as it slowly winds its way to the end. It is a screamer of a movie with passable acting and a below average script and screenplay. Much of the special effects are low grade and there is almost zero believability in the final battle. Still, if you look past these there is some suspense and acting jewels. If you like senseless cookie cutter screamers, you'll like this, otherwise you should pass.