This absurd movie was about a "Goodie-two-shoe," teen-girl that really wanted to be Valedictorian but finds her obstacle in a teacher name Mrs. Tingle. Katie Holmes, who plays this "goodie-two-shoe," is faced with "the biggest dilemma of her teenage life" when this classmate guy of hers comes along with the final exams sample that should help them nail Mrs. Tingle's test. Mrs. Tingle comes along, catches Holmes, the classmate guy and her best friend with the sample of her final exam. Convinced that the three of them planned on cheating on here exam, Mrs. Tingle enthuses on her opportunity to ruin Holmes once and for all with allegations that can take away any chance of Holmes passing her class. And the classmate guy, who apparently has his eye on Holmes, always wondered why she never gave him the time of day (he's an idiot)? Feeling desperate, Holmes and her friends visit Mrs. Tingle in the middle of the night to try to dissuade her in believing that Holmes was planning to cheat. It all backs fire somehow when the classmate guy points a bow and arrow at Mrs. Tingle, threatening her to make things right for Holmes. Mrs. Tingle fights back but ultimately ends up as Holmes and her friend's captive.

During Mrs. Tingle captivity under Holmes, they do everything from tying her up and gagging her in her own bed to blackmailing her with false pictures that they took of the unconscious Coach in bed with Mrs. Tingle. I found myself cringing when the kids were making themselves at home in Mrs. Tingle's house, eating up her food and going though her private work. At one point, Holmes found Mrs. Tingle's grade book and purposely changes the grade in her favor, decreasing the grade of her challenge for valedictorian. The end played out like a childish attempt to bring back the comedy that was sparingly in the beginning of the film, resolving on pure irony, slapstick and absurdity.

This has to be the most unlikable and wickedly evil character Holmes would ever play in her entire life. I wanted to help Mrs. Tingle get free to really dig a grave for Holmes. She was manipulative, selfish and conniving. She even slept with the classmate guy despite her best friend's overwhelming interest in him...and she didn't like him. From attempting to ruin her challengers grades by seizing Mrs. Tingle's grade book to taking her best friend's man, you would think that Holmes would get what she deserves in the end, right? Unfortunately, she obtains everything her heart desires, showing that being wicked, manipulative, selfish and whining can get you what you want.

Mrs. Tingle was suppose to be the character you didn't like. They didn't bring me to that point once to believe that she was this woman that needed to be "taught this lesson." She was like every other strict teacher who even gave valid reasons for her resentment of the next generation. Personally, I felt that her opinions about young people were validated with Holmes and her friend's actions every time. I kept hoping she could get free to call the police and nail Holmes. They kept her tied up in bed, ate up her food like a bunch of pigs, drank up the woman's wine, messed with her personal belongings and we're suppose to believe that she didn't deserve to take a bat to each of their heads? And the classmate guy has to be one of the most disliked characters in the history of film. Forget idiot, we need a new word for him that isn't in the Webster's dictionary. He brought the major trouble into Holme's life then made things worse when he came into Mrs.Tingle's house, uninvited behind Holmes, and corners Mrs. Tingle with a bow and arrow. I was thrilled every time Mrs. Tingle had a chance to slap fire out of him, or choke the wannabe actress best friend.

If you're a teen out there and want to see when a teen's manipulation and wrong doing can get him or her the world, see this unfunny, caricature filled, unintentional film noir.


I made it about halfway through this movie, and at that point realized that I absolutely didn't care how it ended. It is basically a bland teen comedy that I only watched because I like Helen Mirren, who is in fact very good as an impossibly cruel teacher.

The basic idea of the movie (or let's say the first half of the movie, since I don't know - or care - how the second half goes) has been done before, most notably in 9 to 5, and a comparison between the two shows how thoroughly Tingle gets it wrong. You need to feel things are spiraling out of control in a way that makes you feel events are inevitable, and you need well-defined, interesting characters who you care about, and you don't have that. Not the worst movie I've ever seen, but it never grabbed me for a second.


You know, I'm getting really tired of all the generic music being used in these type of movies (see Jawbreaker, Disturbing Behavior, etc). Every scene of genuine tension here (and there is some) is immediately undercut with some cheesy pop tune, completely diluting the suspense. Why do they do that? To sell some soundtracks, of course, but in this case, mission unaccomplished - did anyone buy the CD?

And yeah, Ms. Mirren attacks her role with zest and relish (with some cheez-wiz to add kick). But what are Molly, Leslie and Vivica doing here? Their roles (they're so underused that I cannot use "characters" here) have no purpose in the storyline, so I can't figure out why three well-known actresses had been cast.

Oh, and the ending is so unbelievably hackneyed and irresponsible. The kids get off scot-free and act as if nothing happened - all smiles at graduation. They're criminals, people! No consequences for their actions (kidnapping, assault, grade tampering) - nothing.

Little things too - was Tingle's tale about her husband true? What's with the crossbow? Would the virginal Katie character loose her cherry on a whim like that? (Great message, guys.) Why did McKean go to her home? How did Kate's academic nemesis walk through the door at that exact moment? How do students even obtain teachers' home addresses? WHAT'S WITH JEFFREY TAMBOR?? On what basis did McKean fire Tingle? She's bloodied, battered and held hostage by students, fer cripe's sake!

Oh well, I'm spending way more thought on the script than Mr. Williamson apparently did, so I'll stop here.

3/10


The only reason I watched this movie a second time, was to learn the name of the "second banana" girl playing opposite Katie Holms. Her name is Marisa Coughlan. Never heard of her before. She is lovely. Captivating. With an animated face, and cute bod, she is highly watchable... She's got real, "Poisenality"... More than a passing vibe of Grace Kelly... with youthful exuberance. I think she is Irish in gene pool, (my favorite female DNA) so it makes some sense that she would resemble the most beautiful Irish American. The movie is unremarkable, Katie Holms is classic beauty in the flesh. But Marisa Coughlan is the one you follow with your eyes. In 1999 when this movie was made, she was around 25 years old, in her prime. This reminds me of another silly, worthless movie with the only redemption being the Pretty Girl in it. It was "Career Opportunites" with the first time I saw Jennifer Conoly. Or "Grease II" the first time I saw Michelle Pfeiffer.


It is such a shame when actors and actresses of high quality get involved with pure crap, probably because they were offered a great deal of money. Not one of Helen Mirren's better career moves. The acting of the "teens" is simply appalling, not helped by a script that is in parts simply inept.

Most of Kevin Williamson's work is above average box office dross, but this is really below par.

This is the sort of movie that you watch on TV when there is nothing better on and you have had half a bottle of wine to drink and are waiting for the Pizza to be delivered so you can drink the other half.


Ridiculous thriller in which a group of students kidnapped their bad and neurotic teacher (Mirren) just to prevent her action against them. Interesting premise could render a good movie but this one is just lame and far fetched. Boring with an ending embarassing, just to say the least. Mrs. Mirren tries to give some dignity to this misfire but even she - a good actress, no doubt about it - could save this garbage. I give this a 4 (four).


Going into Teaching Mrs Tingle, all I wanted was a fun, enjoyable teen comedy that would entertain me for it's running time. Despite a rather good first half hour, the film quickly subsides into a dull, clichéd mess that's about as entertaining as pulling out your eyelashes with pliers. Rusty pliers, at that. 'Scream' writer Kevin Williamson wrote and directed this movie, and proved that Scream may well have been a fluke. Most of the elements of this movie have been seen a million times already in other films; and while it was OK for him to steal elements from other movies in Scream, due to the fact that it's meant as a slasher tribute; here, it just looks like he's completely ran out of ideas. The plot follows the cleverest girl in school, played by Katie Holmes. After being caught cheating along with two of her friends; the three decide to take the teacher that caught them hostage in her own home. However, this isn't just any teacher; it's Mrs Tingle, the meanest bitch in school. She isn't taking being tied to the bed lying down either, as she begins to play mind games to turn her captors against each other.

The plot is very similar to the 1997 flick 'Suicide Kings', and a whole host of earlier films. It's actually not a bad idea for a movie, and if Williamson could have populated the film with interesting characters; it could have worked really well. The character of Mrs Tingle is the most interesting in the movie, but she's massively one dimensional, and like all the other characters in the film; is merely a caricature. The acting is largely diabolical, with the exception of Helen Mirren in the title role. She's suitably evil in the role, and while she doesn't have a lot to get her teeth into; she clearly enjoys herself playing the central figure. The teenage cast isn't worth mentioning, with only Katie Holmes standing out; and that's only really because of her star profile, not her acting talents. Williamson has draped nearly every scene in dull soft rock music, which would be really annoying if the film wasn't absolutely terrible anyway. Honestly, this movie does have a few moments that are rather good; but basically, if you want to see a good example of the teen comedy - this isn't the movie that you want to see.


I don't think I'm spoiling anyone's experience of this film by telling you not to see it if you have anything better to do, like clean under the stove. It gets dirty under there and you've gotta clean it sometime.

I think the movie suffers from a lack of sex and violence, though there is one car chase stunt that looks so dangerous it could only have been filmed in a country where life is cheaper than beer. "Gargoyle"'s heart is in the right place, but its aspirations are conservative. It is at least not pretentious. But I had a great time acting in it, playing the perennial idiot in the horror movie who says "What's down this hole?" and dies for his hubris. Plus I got to meet Michael Pare. Every film junkie should work with a B-movie staple at least once before death. And Romanians are the loveliest people I've met. Literally the loveliest. Walk down the street in Bucarest: if 7 of every 10 women aren't absolutely beautiful, you're walking down a street I didn't come across; and be consoled by the fact that at least 5 of the 10 are available for drinks.

Part of the film was shot in Casa Radio, an abandoned, unfinished Classic Communist Bloc-cum-Georgian Nightmare edifice originally intended to house KGB propaganda ministries, i.e. Radio Not-so-Free Europe. The building's five stories tall and takes up a city block; best of all, while its facade radiates Big Brotheresque state solidity, it resides near the city center like a post-apocalyptic ruin in a jungle of burdock and hemp peopled by dozens of Gypsies and scores of wild dogs. Construction on Casa Radio was suspended when Caucescu and his wife were executed on TV in 1989, and still there are gaping holes that drop from the sun-baked top floor (offering surreal vistas of a modern quarter-mile stretch of concrete roof, decorated with jutting rebar and old car parts, overlooking a crumbling ancient city) all the way down to the damp, creepy sub-basement (which doubles in the film for the Gargoyle lair.) No American-style guardrails or warning signs for Bucarest.

Since the demise of the Soviet Union, Casa Radio has hosted several non-union film shoots, including "Highlander III". It is attractive to producers because it's a cheap location, massive in terms of scale and available space, bizarre looking, and free of insurance headaches as it's still state property. Plus no one complains if you don't clean up after your production: anything left onsite is interpolated into the resident Gypsies' construction of their shanty town in this actual urban jungle.

An assistant director was bitten bloody by a wild dog during the shoot of "Gargoyle". The apples provided by catering were pressed into service by cast and crew as projectiles in order to keep the prowling dogs at bay. I too was bitten by wild dogs in Bucarest, once in a bar (!) and once in a city park. I also survived two car wrecks in two weeks, both in taxis and neither of which was seen by the drivers involved as grounds for stopping the cars.

GEEK NOTE: The Sci-Fi Network or Channel or whatever was one of the backers of this film (the smaller the budget, the more producers on set), so it's a little weird that nobody had a problem with the original title, "Gargoyles", until it was almost time to show it on the network, even though Sci-Fi already had an unrelated series of that name. The title was changed sometime relatively close to release, as I have a color-corrected copy labeled with the former title.


This is just one of the hundred million movies where the directors try to shove too much drama into a movie that's not dramatic at all. Like in the beginning, the part where the monk dude shoved the arrow into his own hand, then shot that same arrow into the gargoyle five minutes later--no sense whatsoever.

The only thing worse than the plot line is the CGI, which would be greatly rivaled by a homemade flash movie. The actors look like they're doing their hardest to portray a bunch of 70's robots; the dialogue makes so little sense it's not funny.

Many things just HAPPEN with no explanation as to how or why, such as a lady suddenly wandering around a zoo that had shut down hours ago. And when she sees this THING flying towards her, her first reaction is to take a picture, rather than what she does a full ten minutes later---power-walking (not even running) like her life depended on it--which, obviously, it doesn't.

Overall, not recommended. Makes me wish they still did new episodes of MST3K.


You know that mouthwash commercial where the guy has a mouth full of Listerine or whatever it is and he's trying really hard to keep from spitting it up into the sink? That's a great metaphor for this movie. I kept watching, even though it was really difficult. But keeping mouthwash in your mouth will leave you with a minty fresh feeling. This movie left me with a bad taste in my mouth. I should have spit it out when I had the chance.

The premise is corny enough to be fun. For the first time in like a thousand years, Gargoyles have returned to Romania, and all of the priests who knew how to fight and kill these things are long dead. It's up to Michael Pare and some other secret agents to get to the bottom of things before the Gargoyles run amok. Unfortunately, the premise is completely lost in bad dialog and less than enthusiastic acting on the part of the human leads. The best acting is done by the CG Gargoyles.

In the end, this movie feels like a poor man's Van Helsing. If you check your brain at the door, this might get you through a dreary Monday night. I gave it 3 out of 10 stars.


Gargoyle starts late one night in 'Romania 1532' as a peasant girl (Daniela Nane) travels along in her horse & cart minding her own business when from the moonlit clouds above a living Gargoyle swoops down & attacks her, she manages to escape the Gargoyle & happens upon a castle of some description where an angry mob of local villagers & a Priest are able to put an end to the Gargoyle, or so they think... Cut to present day Bucharest where two CIA agents Ty Griffin (Michael Pare) & Jennifer Wells (Sandra Hess) are about to negotiate the safe return of the son of a rich American ambassador from his kidnappers. In pursuit of one of the kidnappers Griffin loses him on the roof of a building but finds a large pool of blood & no visible signs of what happened to him. Meanwhile Dr. Christina Durant (Kate Orsini) & her colleague Richard Barrier (Jason Rohrer) are renovating a church when the church labourer Gregor (Mihai Bisericanu) informs Richard that he has found some ancient relic, the two investigate & find a cave with lots of slimy cocoons & one very angry & very much alive Gargoyle who wastes no time in killing them both. Griffin & Wells are on the case when they are reported missing & soon realise that local legends of monstrous Gargoyles are true with a local priest named Father Soren (Fintan McKeown) planning to flood the world with them...

Co-written, co-produced & directed by Jim Wynorski under his usual pseudonym Jay Andrews Gargoyles is yet another masterpiece Wynorski can add to his credits, not. The script by Wynorski, Ion Ionescu, A.G. Lawrence & Bill Munroe is crap, is unexciting, dull & is as simplistic as you can get. For a start I would like to know if there was only one Gargoyle left who laid all those eggs because I'm pretty sure it couldn't have made itself pregnant. How did it survive in that hole for 500 years? What did it eat? How did the priest know it was there? Why has no one else ever figured it out? Why did the priest want to flood the world with them? To rule it? The Gargoyles are hardly going to take over the world & then let some priest just rule it like a king & if they did what would be left to rule? Much like the guys who wrote Gargoyle I don't think he thought it through that well did he? Whichever way I look at it, whichever way I approach it, from whichever angle I try to figure it out from, no matter how many times I try to square the circle Gargoyles just doesn't make any sense & they story has huge plot holes, lapses in logic & isn't that great to start with anyway. The character's are dull & clichéd, the action repetitive & unexciting while the film as a whole is a real bore to sit through. People do illogical things & everything that happens is far to convenient like when the priest is try to convince Griffin that Gargoyle's exist & one just suddenly shows up & attacks them. The cave full of cocoons is such a rip-off of Aliens (1986) it's embarrassing & the ending was lame. The bit on the large Ferris Wheel at the fair was funny though when the guy mocked the boys fear of heights & forced him to get on it.

Director Wynorski cuts costs & steals footage from other films, in fact the best scene from Gargoyle is a car chase through Bucharest but it was taken from the Jean-Claude Van Damme action film Maximum Risk (1996). There are no shocks, scares or atmosphere. The special effects are terrible, the CGI Gargoyle looks like it belongs in a computer game & has little interaction with any living cast members, there are lots of scenes of people looking up to the sky & trying to appear scarred. There isn't even any worthwhile gore to make the thing watchable, there is one awful decapitation & that's it.

Technically the special effects are awful but otherwise it's passable, the Romanian locations look suitably Romanian. Gargoyle went straight-to-video & it shows with a pretty cheap look & feel to it. The acting isn't up to much, personality bypass victim Michael Pare makes for the dullest of dull heroes.

Gargoyle is a crap film, it fails at everything a decent creature feature should strive to achieve. A total waste of 90 minutes as far as I'm concerned, one to avoid.


This movie is like porn with all of the good parts removed. It's like all of the porn stars that didn't want to fulfill their obligations banded together around this awful, trite, useless piece of gargoyle abstinence.

This is a helpful movie if you're in the mood to torture a loved (or no longer loved) one. It's important that, if you choose to use this movie as a method of torture, that you put in earplugs and put on a blindfold to keep yourself from going insane.

If I had a choice between this movie and The 700 Club...I'd choose Girls Gone Wild.

Overall, better if you've been drinking. But only because it becomes a drinking game of epic proportions.


The acting was flat (at least none of the actors sounded like they'd just got the script that morning) and the film and sound quality made me think of the 70s movie of the week bombs. The only thing that told me that it was indeed not a 70s movie of the week was the reference to DNA testing. But for me, being Eastern Orthodox, the most egregious thing about this....film.....was the total Romishness of the religion. Romania is 88% Orthodox but you'd never know that from this movie: Father Soren is Irish. And I'd have known this even if I hadn't seen the actor play the Irish pub keep, Michael Sullivan in Star Trek: Voyager's "Fairhaven" episodes. The Bishop was wearing Roman vestments (and for the record not even Orthodox bishops wear their vestments unless they're saying the liturgy, especially if they live in a monastery). About the only non-Romish paraphernalia I saw was the 3-bar cross on the door of the church, and even then I had to squint to see it. The first reviewer said the producers had done their research. Well, if that's true they messed up on the religious aspect of the film.


there is only way to describe this movie.

so bad its hilarious.

the acting is so bad i laughed my ass off throughout. The male lead in this movie trying to use a gun is so ridiculous you would think he was trying to copy a toy action figure, i know this sounds ridiculous but when you see it for yourself you can't help but agree.

the monster looks like a cgi guy trying to recreate the clay monsters you get in old Sinbad movies.

in short this movie is good for only one thing a really large laugh at how bad movies can get.

If you want to see bad acting bad script and special effects gone wrong

THIS IS THE MOVIE FOR YOU


I will not spoil your surprise by mentioning any of the hideous plot lines, I'll just say that this movie suffers from poor animation, over acting, obvious tag lines these are some of it's good qualities. if you are deserted on an isolated island and the only link to civilization you got is this movie throw it to the fish. I can't tell you how much I'm sorry I saw this horrifying ghastly movie. Speaking of which, this movie supposedly a horror movie cannot be classified as such for the simple fact that the only horror in the movie is the playing capabilities of some of the actors.

Take care.


To this day, Malcolm McLaren is telling anyone daft enough to believe him that the Sex Pistols were his idea and that the band members were his puppets to be used to make him money. There is a good reason for him doing this, namely that he is a liar.

Here are some real facts.

* McLaren was actually approached by the band to be manager, not the other way round.

* The Pistols were a proper, organic band and not created by McLaren or anyone else. Jones and Cook were childhood friends. Rotten and Vicious went back a long way too. This is something that has led to unfair criticism of the Pistols down the years as they have been likened to manufactured boy bands.

* The band and no one else wrote the songs, recorded them, played live, created the publicity and gave the interviews.

* McLaren did not instigate the Bill Grundy incident. The Pistols only appeared on the programme because Queen had pulled out. According to the band, McLaren was cowering in the back in case arrests were about to be made.

* Johnny Rotten walked out of the band. He was not sacked.

* Far from outwitting the Sex Pistols, John Lydon (Rotten) actually successfully sued him in the 1980s for control and a considerable sum of money. Some of the evidence used by Lydon's lawyers was from McLaren's boasting in 'The Great Rock & Roll Swindle'. This would suggest that McLaren is none too bright despite his affectations.

* The sackings and subsequent pay offs from A & M and EMI were, again, not engineered, it was merely the way things panned out.

* McLaren boasts about the money he made from the band. If he had been competent, he could have made a great deal more. It seems he coudn't even organise gigs properly.

* McLaren's claim at the start of the film that he invented punk rock can be disproved in about ten seconds. The Pistols were not the first punk band, merely the most high profile.

This is a terrible film. The only parts worth watching are the genuine footage of the band, later put to much better use in 'The Filth And The Fury'.


Not only is The Great Rock N Roll Swindle thoroughly inaccurate, but when it comes down to it, not much about it is interesting or even entertaining. Malcolm McLaren apparently squandered the majority of the Sex Pistols earnings on this waste of film, which makes it that much more obnoxious. The intention, from the beginning, was to create a monument to the "genius" of McLaren, who to this day takes full credit for creating punk music, creating the Sex Pistols, and at times even writing all the songs. Viewers follow McLaren to various settings, where he tells his story to his sidekick, a female dwarf, and simply takes credit for one thing after another. One particularly irritating scene has McLaren in an abandoned airplane hangar, waiting for a plane, being hounded by reporters and giving them their "big story". The most entertaining elements of the film are the animated short pieces, however, even these reek of McLaren's overbearing self-importance.

Even as a farce, this film doesn't work. Little about it is entertaining, except for Steve Jones, who is surprisingly decent as a pseudo-detective type person. 20 years later, Julien Temple, who wrote and directed this film, also directed the Sex Pistols documentary "The Filth and the Fury". While that movie is much better and more interesting than "Swindle", it still is full of Temple's "artistic flourishes" that just don't work, like interviewing band members in shadow, as if they are some kind of crime witness trying to hide their identity. An interesting bit of trivia: Film critic Roger Ebert was one of the original scriptwriters for the movie "Who Killed Bambi?", which eventually became "Swindle".


From the epicenter of the cultural globe, four working class teenagers attempted to change the world through music and fashion. It was the final attempt to do so last century, and they failed. Before the dust had cleared, band manager and SEX shop proprietor Malcolm McLaren spent the money The Sex Pistols had earned to make a "mockumentary" about his own role in their success. The film was called The Great Rock 'n Roll Swindle (take the hint) and consists of very little footage of The Sex Pistols actually playing music, and quite a lot of footage of McLaren effectively calling the audience idiots.

Cod-surrealist nonsense in which guitarist Steve Jones is a detective on McLaren's tail, soon dissolves so he and drummer Paul Cook can jet off to Rio and spend time with "great train robber" Ronnie Biggs. Ready yourself for the spectacle of three very unappealing men dancing naked to a hideous irony-free version of "Belsen was a Gas" (a song about killing Jews for gold in Bergen-Belsen concentration camp), and another song sung in Ronnie's tone deaf whine which includes the lyrics "God save Myra Hindley, God save Ian Brady" (lyrics that Johnny Rotten would have considered distasteful). The Sid Vicious scenes are few and idiotic. Jumping out of bed in a thong with a swastika over the testicles to sing some bad boy biker song from the '50s. Playing into to the "Punk's a joke" theme of the movie, in an attempt to turn Sid into James Dean. I'm surprised McLaren doesn't take credit for Siddy's death too. The redeeming scenes are those of Sid in Paris and the infamous performance of My Way. The punk rock zeitgeist right there. Mocking an adoring audience before shooting them all. No need for an entire film, just watch that clip on YouTube.

From Julien Temple's far superior (and more enjoyable) 2001 documentary followup, The Filth and the Fury, we were given a more balanced/honest view of what transpired in '78. But there were also a number of scenes that I would have liked to have seen in Swindle (as Fury was basically a reediting of the same material). One was an animated Sid complete with Sid's voice acting; "You f*cken betta wat'ch out, alright, or I'll slice you open" - a still of which appeared on the cover of the Something Else 7 inch - a snippet was shown in Fury, but I don't know what context that originally appeared. Was it in original prints, but removed after Sid's death? Was there more? Fury also shed light on the film Who Killed Bambi, which would have been the mock Hard Day's Night movie McLaren was originally intending to make. It starred Sting(!) as a member of a gay New Romantics group, and looked a damn sight more entertaining than Swindle.

Sod Swindle, t'is a swindle. If you must, rent The Filth and The Fury and revel in music's failure as a world changing polemic.


The brief existence of The Sex Pistols and the making of this film after the controversial, groundbreaking English punk band's break-up both happened before I was born. However, I started listening to their only album, "Never Mind the B*&%@#&s, Here's the Sex Pistols", in 2003, when I was a teenager, and quickly became a big fan. I didn't see "The Great Rock 'n' Roll Swindle" until 2006, but saw it a couple times that year, and thought it was pretty good (certainly not great, but pretty good), even if I could only remember bits of it, and didn't see how it all connected. Seeing it a third time, nearly three years after the second, I didn't care much for it at all. I'm not even sure what I found so good about most of it in the first place (can't remember now).

This film is a mockumentary, in which Sex Pistols manager Malcolm McLaren tells his side of the story of the band and its members; guitarist Steve Jones, credited here as "The Crook"; drummer Paul Cook, credited as "The Tea-Maker"; bassist Sid Vicious, credited as "The Gimmick"; and John Lydon (a.k.a. Johnny Rotten) credited as "The Collaborator." McLaren claims that he created the band (and even the genre of punk rock) as a scam to make money. He tells much of the story to Helen Wellington-Lloyd (a.k.a. Helen of Troy), in various places where they go together. It's basically a hodgepodge of McLaren talking, Pistols songs, live footage of the band, fictional scenes (often silly, strange ones), several cartoon sequences, etc., all put together in one film, to tell the Pistols manager's side of the story in a bizarre way!

It has been well proved that McLaren is a liar, I know many have already pointed this out, including band members themselves. He was NOT the driving force of the band, he didn't create them (nor did he invent punk rock, and The Sex Pistols weren't even the first punk band, though they were unique). The band members were the ones who made the band what it was. "The Filth and the Fury", a much more believable film about the band from Julien Temple, who made this film, is told from the point of view of the band members, who contradict McLaren's claims. However, the dishonesty of "The Great Rock 'n' Roll Swindle" is not my biggest problem with it. If it were actually entertaining (which I used to think it was to a certain extent), I would be able to overlook that, like I obviously used to be able to do. During my third viewing, apart from Sex Pistols songs, some live footage, and at least one mildly amusing cartoon sequence, it was pretty dull! I found the "Who Killed Bambi" song mildly amusing at first, but it got tiring very quickly.

Is this mockumentary worth watching for Sex Pistols fans? It seems a good number of fans would say it is, not to learn about the true story of the short-lived but groundbreaking 70's punk band, but for entertainment. That was once my opinion on "The Great Rock 'n' Roll Swindle". After the first time I watched it, I couldn't remember a thing McLaren said, and by the time I saw it the second time, I was aware of what the Pistols manager was using this film to imply, but could still barely remember anything I heard him say! Obviously, other aspects of the film were what I found impressive. Now, after my third viewing, I can definitely remember some of the things McLaren says, but it still wasn't 100% clear. Like most of the film, I guess his words are not that memorable, probably because of the way they're presented. If you're a Pistols fan, I guess it wouldn't hurt to give "Swindle" a try, but to me, for the most part, it's just an incoherent, boring mess that tries to be funny but fails.


This appalling piece of tripe was (conveniently) loosely based on a true story that involved two family members of mine (played by Jack Thompson and Jacqueline Mackenzie).

This film is offensive; besides the fact that it wasn't a particular good film anyway, it does not in any way capture what it was like to lose such a close family member and completely omits those who were really affected by the true-life tragedy.

As for the director; he managed to cash in on a family's misfortune for the price of a Porsche.

If I could have given this a zero I would have.

Avoid this film at all costs.


Well its ten year's on since this film was released and the sands of time have not improved it one bit, again like the other comments made the Aussie film makers should have a little more drama rather than middle class aussies riding around beautiful places on there bikes with not much in the was of dialog. middle class is not funny nor is rich. there is also a mish mash of cast. why is a young woman going to marry a man old enough to be her father, it escapes me. It's such a shame about this film, looks like a wonderful place to holiday thou. Anyway its an hour and thirty mins of my life i will never be able to get back. lifes to short to watch this movie.


I turned this off within the first five minutes. It's very sick and disturbing, the moment I turned this off was when the beautiful white horse was let into the slaughterhouse and it's skull was punctured by a small tubed instrument. This creature was lying on the floor in a state of shock before it died. The narrator said the animal dies instantaneously, it didn't. I don't agree with graphic realism towards animals, insects or any living creature. I was very disappointed as I had just watched 'Eyes Without a face' which was a brilliant movie and this short film was attached, which spoilt my night - as I couldn't hurt a fly, never mind watching this savage documentary.

reading other reviews on this page, I had noticed they used words such as aesthetic - this is not art or beauty. I can imagine that the documentary would be very articulate and profound but not aesthetic.


I saw this film yesterday on TV. I had just finished reading the book in which the movie was supposedly based. In the opening credits it said "This is a free adaptation of Eça de Queirós' novel". I should have turned off my TV at that moment.

Vera Sacramento's idea of "free adaptation" is turning a story about Church's influence over people and the hypocrisy of people claiming morality at the end of the 19th century into a story about sex. In fact, the only thing she adopted from the novel was the sex part, which was only mildly referred in Eça de Queirós' novel. And, of course, the name of some characters.

As of the characters, in the novel, Amélia and João Eduardo were victims of church's influence. Amélia was seduced by Father Amaro and all the time she was controlled by him. João Eduardo, her fiancé, was excommungated by the priests, because he dared to criticize them. In this movie, Amélia seduces every one she meets and Father Amaro is just another victim. João Eduardo is a dealer of drugs and illegal weapons.

Vera Sacramento has turned a novel which criticized moral costumes of an epoch and turned it into just another movie with lots of (bad) sex. Even worse, her story was completely empty of ideas. Two wasted hours! Eça de Queirós surely did not deserve this.


I was not making big assumptions on the fact that this for sure was a very, very free adaptation from the work of Eça de Queiroz, and I must say that this free adaptation form the book as a lot of possible good ideas and characters. The problem is the way that is done, without any care, without any taste, just a rumble of bad taste clichés everywhere. The script is so fake and the characters so unreal that's makes petty seeing nice actors as Unas, Bryner, Morgado, Lagarto and others, lost themselves in a net of whatever except cinema or storytelling. For my surprise the newcomers Jorge Corrula and Soraia Chaves bravely stick in their performances, but you can see them lost like a drifted boat without any direction. And talking about direction, this seems to be something totally missing on this moviewhere's the Director? Everything is bad taste; the frames are whatever, and whenever, the use of hand camera without any justified reason, the light design that should build environments doesn't exist (and no excuses that the all point is a dark real story). The problem overall in this "trying to be" film is that as no taste, or very, very bad taste. It's sad to see Jorge and Soraia melting away in such fake and gratuity sex scenes, painted here and there trough out the movie like closing narratives holes or used as fakes transition motives. Maybe Carlos Coelho da Silva should see the 2002 Carlos Carrera adaptation of the same book of Eça and get the felling of how to build a true movie.


As you might not know Eça de Queiroz is one of Portugal's most rightfully celebrated writers. He was witty, he spared no one in his critics and must now be rolling in his tomb. And that's not due to this movie being bad, which it is, but as a result of the treatment dispensed to one of his masterworks "O Crime do Padre Amaro". It's treated like cheap, throwaway trash.

When it was publicized that this was to be a "modern and urban" take on the book I feared for the worst, normally modern in these contexts means taking the liberty to take the p**** when doing an adaptation, to half arse it in the shoddiest possible way. And so the moral and social dilemma of a priest having a secret,forbidden affair are substituted by extra-long passages of people dealing drugs and singing hip-hop for no particular or pertinent reason to the plot. It's just there like it might very well not have been.

Oh and there's lots of sex so you can at least be counting on that when you put this on. Remember how every movie in the 80's, no matter the genre or the tone always found a way to sneak in some nudity? If it was a thriller and they had no need for it they simply found a way that when they were capturing a felon he "happened" to be in bed with a woman that would prance around screaming (naked of course) when the cops barged in. Ahem, gratuitous is the word I think. Not that there's anything wrong with nude scenes but here they make the creators of this movie look desperate simply because there's nothing else to the movie, it's totally devoid of what do you call it dramatic content.


The film is nothing else than an exposition of nudity. Has anyone noticed that all three main female characters appear naked? It looks like the only winning bet for Portuguese filmmakers is to include some (if not a lot) of nudity of the local stars, together with slang which otherwise, in the nowadays Portuguese society, is repulsed with horror. If you watch advertising for Portuguese films at Portuguese TVs, they all have included a "hot" scene from the movie. I'm not saying, by any means, that Portuguese society is alienated; just that the movie industry does not seem capable of finding others ways of success. Going back to the movie... There is nothing left from the spirit of the book, which is a masterpiece. The film could have been a good one, had there been emphasized the real idea of the book (of actuality at any time) and not the strictly erotic part. It had almost all the ingredients... but the "chef" was awful...


Will there be please coming an end to hyping movies that are dealing about social conflicts or other human disasters? Okay "Care" is about childabuse, "Care" is about perverts misusing boys in a school and how disgusting it might be, if it's a movie with a poor script and made with bad playing actors then it stays a bad movie. "Care" is a movie that could have been, but is it because it was a tvmovie I don't know but everything seemed so limited that it comes over as some cheap movie that will be seen by some housewifes and fathers who decide not to go to bed. There are so many unanswered things in this movie...the relation with his mother for instance or the death of some abused boy from which we know nothing more. "Care" should have been much much better.


Oh man! This series has to be the worst possible anime I've ever seen in a while.

It started out new, exciting and fresh. And I really liked it then. Kagome was a good female role model for the show. And Inu-Yasha was funny and hot-headed.

Then, it just kept falling more and more downhill as the series progressed... and I'll tell y'all the reasons why. (Warning: SPOILER ALERT!!)

Okay, they basically destroy Inu-Yasha's relationship with Kagome early on, by reviving his 50 year old dead girlfriend, who's drippy, sappy, and a total waste of time.

They introduce a pervert named Miroku, who's supposed to be a sort of religious figure for the show. (Which really bugged me,'cause it was out of place and stupid.) Then, they introduce a demon slayer named Sango, whose only purpose in life is to try (and fail) to save her brainwashed brother.

The big bad of the show, Naraku, while starting out as a really good bad guy, lost his touch after a while. (He got pretty old pretty fast. And it bothered me that he was the only baddie in the show who did anything.)

The characters all became wooden, and unemotional. And then, the ending of this terrible series was a disappointment to any anime fan out there. Nothing happened. Naraku never got killed or defeated. Kagome and Inu-Yasha never fully fell in love ('cause he was still all in love with his 50 year old dead chick.) Plot holes were left open. The animation got worse and worse as the series progressed. And nothing changed in the plot. (I mean,they dragged it out to over 150 episodes, and nothing changed in the plot... at all.) And they expected me (as well as other fans of the show) to be satisfied?? I was disenchanted, disgusted, and annoyed as crap. I at least had high hopes that there'd be a good ending to the series. Instead, all I got was a dragged out commercial for the manga.

Seriously, if you wanna see a good anime about swords and stuff like that, I strongly recommend "Rurouni Kenshin". That show progresses and goes somewhere, plus it has really good animation too.

But stay far away from this bland excuse for anime, as best as you can.


Let me state this right from the start. I do NOT hate this show. I actually quite like some aspects of it. In fact, when i first started to watch it, I quickly became hooked. I was just starting to come out of the whole "anime is for kids" stereotype, and the mature elements of the show had me intrigued.

Unfortunately, after seeing the whole series through and a few of the films, I can say that my overall disposition has changed, and it falls into almost all of the pitfalls that plague "bad" anime. Seven or eight friends and myself started watching this series on TV. By the end, only one friend and I were still watching and neither of us liked it.

Allow me to explain the plot for you. You can skip this paragraph if you don't want to know. Kagome is an average high school student, who one day falls into a magical well near her family run shrine. When kagome comes out of the well again, she has been transported back in time to the feudal era of japan. She meets up with many other characters and they form a group of five or so companions who set off on a journey of revenge/justice/groping in one characters case =). Overall, they are trying to recover the pieces of the sacred jewel shard which enhances the power of demons who use it.

While there are many, MANY side stories and story arcs, there is no were near enough material to occupy 167 episodes. The only story arc that is interesting enough to watch is still sort of dull (the band of seven). After the half way mark in the series or maybe even before, it becomes painfully obvious that the plot is frozen in place and whoever made the series decided instead to put in dozens and dozens of filler episodes.

These episodes have little to no impact on the story, and rarely even on the characters. In some cases, some characters who had an important role in the story will disappear for dozens of episodes at a time. Many episodes follow the exact same cookie cutter patterns as the stories before it. Inuyasha shoots wind-scar at enemy. Windscar deflects. Characters gasp in horror. Enemy turns out to have barrier. Characters spent three episodes trying to kill enemy before Kagome finally fires sacred arrow at him and he turns to dust.

Also **MAJOR SPOILER: THE CONCLUSION WILL BE REVEALED** the lack of any conclusion makes it seem like you have waisted 83 hours.

**MAJOR SPOILER OVER**

The animation itself is above average, and in some cases excellent. Even so, reused animation cells plague most action scenes, and it is very hard to ignore them when it is clear that the exact same boulder has flown past a character five or six times in a row.

On the brighter side however, all of the characters are very well developed and the romances between some of the characters were truly captivating. Also, the character designs (appearences) were brilliant and at times among the best I have seen, particularly with the band of seven. There is definitely no shortage of Cosplay opportunities here. Even so, I found myself hoping that a character would die just so there would be some sort of movement in the plot. And some of the humour in the show between characters is used again and again. One particular joke (sit boy) is found within the first five episodes, and you can literally expect it to be used again and again for the remaining 162 episodes.

Although there are some good aspects of the show and it is easy to see why it has a huge following, the series seems to be dominated by obsessed fan girls who drool over Sesshomiru and InuYasha.

Bottom line: Definitely worth checking out, but not worth watching the whole series. The first 30 episodes are very clever, original and enjoyable for anybody. But after that, it simply becomes dull and tedious. Watching a TV show should never feel like a chore, but somehow this series accomplishes just that. Don't expect much from "InuYasha", because you will only feel let down.


Rossini once described rival composer Wagner's work as having "some wonderful moments...and some awful quarter-hours". Inuyasha, it seems, can also be described this way. It has many great episodes, but in between them are countless filler episodes. The entire series consists of about 175 episodes, of which I'd say at least 125 are filler or some sort of subplot (I didn't bother to count and I wouldn't be surprised if that number were in fact higher, though).

Some of these filler episodes are actually quite enjoyable, though many are quite silly or dull. Nonetheless, the constant digressions start to wear thin after the first few seasons as the plot ends up progressing at a labored crawl for most of the series. Character development, too, slows down greatly and by the later seasons, the cast has become quite unchanging, resulting in increasingly stale jokes (particularly those concerning the monk, who's ironic traits start out as mildly humorous but grow tiresome when the jokes associated with them appear repeatedly).

However, all of that isn't to say that Inuyasha is a bad series. It just isn't a great series the way Neon Genesis Evangelion, for example, is generally considered to be. As something to watch at the end of a hard day, it is nice, but it could never be confused with high art.


May or may not contain spoilers.

Inuyasha is not a good anime. It's actually very overrated. Why? There's absolutely no story line, no plot, and the show just drags on... and on... and on... That's because there are more side stories and fillers than episodes that make the plot progress. And the fillers are just the same stories being repeated over and over again. The same episodes seem to go with the same plot: Kagome sensing a jewel shard, a worm/slime/tentacle demon thing pops up, Inuyasha says "Wind-Scar", "Iron Reaver Soul Stealer", etc. and kills the demon, they get the jewel shard, and then we just repeat this scene 160 or more times.

Besides the repeating of episodes, there's the repeating of comedic devices, and they're not funny anymore. Wait, they never were. Sexual harassment is NOT funny. Viz rated the series Older Teens, 16+. I have no idea why they rated it that. There's nothing bad about it except for the so-called funny sexual harassment, which is kind of suggestive, and that could get you arrested these days.

Now, this is how we know Inuyasha is overrated. The videogames. They all sucked. Especially the Mask game. I played that at my friend's house. It wasn't anything interesting. The game was slow, boring, and it had Nintendo 64 like graphics. In a magazine, it got a rating of 4/10, saying "...this role-playing game is slower than milkshake moving up a cocktail straw." Then, there's all these stupid Inuyasha toys, action figures, trading cards, stickers, and coloring books. COLORING BOOKS! We thought Inuyasha was 16+! Maybe not... But after being a member of Inuyasha groups on MSN, about half the people on there were 10 to 13. I guess Inuyasha is a little kid anime after all. (I think that just a small bit of editing done to this show, it could be shown on Toonami.) There are over 40 manga volumes. I can only help but wonder how many miles of forest that have been cut down to make them. Sad...

Then there's the music. The music is so annoying. We hear the same 5 songs every episode. After 10 episodes, the music gets really annoying. In other anime, they have music to fit the mood and we don't hear some songs very often. There are about 15 different Inuyasha soundtracks. Don't waste your money on that garbage!

And how do you think I know all this? Because I used to be a fan of Inuyasha. I feel ashamed of myself. I'd rather watch Kim Possible or Pokemon instead. Sadly, those two shows have more romance between the two main protagonists than Inuyasha will ever have...


To be entirely frank, the popularity of this show saddens me. Inuyasha is certainly not terrible - it has a few good moments, the occasional flash of clever humour, and, unlike so many animes, dignity. However, it is utterly lacking in the essential elements of a worthwhile story. From the start, its premise dooms it to be stereotypical. The main plot centers around collecting the pieces of a shattered jewel before they can be possessed by evil, and is, as one would suspect, a totally generic epic fantasy affair. The story follows a familiar pattern of fighting off various enemies for pieces of the jewel, and is thus quite predictable, lacking in complexity, and easy to lose interest in. But as so many animes have shown, a poor premise can be rescued by deep, realistic characters. Sadly, no one rescues the story of Inuyasha. Kagome, the main character, is the stereotypical anime heroine (and far too reminiscent of Akane, the main character of the original comic author's previous work Ranma 1/2); she is kind to other females, but treats many males, especially her love interest, with unfair, unabashed, unjustifiable brutality. Inuyasha is a tough-on-the-outside-but-sweet-on-the-inside type, and Miroku is the lamentable stock character of "the pervert".

The flaws continue with what happens to this plot and these characters - namely, nothing. Despite constant action, the story does not progress. Despite regular romantic moments, neither does the main relationship. Despite ample time, the characters never really change. And to add a cherry to the sundae of mediocrity, all this stagnation is stretched into approximately 150 episodes.

My final criticism of this anime is the animation. While certainly not ugly, it displays almost disrespectful laziness on the part of the creators. The animators seem to take joy in long scenes of Inuyasha jumping through the air with wind whistling in which they have little to do but move a background.

In short, with all the beautiful animations of the world at one's keyboard-perched fingertips, there is absolutely no reason to watch Inuyasha.


Don't kill me fans but I have something to say about this.

Pros: Well, the most mildly interesting season that I've watched out of all the seasons that are out there of Inuyasha just has tobe the Shichinintai arc. Unlike the rest of the seasons, I personally think that this one has more of a real plot line and those mercenaries; good god they're such likable characters. Shame they were killed off. Of course, I would write a 15 page essay one why I like the Shichinintai so much but that would be boring for some of you. So this series actually does have some likable characters. I'll miss Bankotsu... poor, poor psycho little boy.

Cons: Outside of Shichinintai arc, the series was overall boring, repetitive and some of the characters are extremely irritating. Kagome for example: She overreacts too much to my taste; she acts like Yuka from Elfen Lied. Inuyasha: He's a loud mouth dog demon with a huge sword. What's so unique about him? He has ADORABLE DOG EARS! Tch. Sesshomaru is all talk, no action and very cocky. Naraku has just got to be the wimpiest villain that ever existed in the anime world. Miroku and Sango... they have some color but they just seem to stand on the sidelines too much. But what bugs me the most if the fact that they have absolutely no COMMON SENSE at all. Rumiko Takahashi has done a LOT better then this. I've seen it before.

If you like series with a lot of action, no annoying love triangle, no over repetitiveness, this is not for you then.


"Inuyasha " was awful . This show was incredibly over -hyped but this is nothing but a tedious bunch of anime clichés. The characters are annoying and lifeless ,the story line is boring and endless .I think that it could have be something interesting if it have a better writing, but it seems that the writers of the show have more intentions in show Inuyasha and his stupid friends fighting with some monsters and then crying for his tragic love triangle with Kikyou and Kagome and a lot of circles around the same thing again and again . The script is cheesy and dumb and the animation is poor .The character design it 's very ugly ,I don't know why everyone love it ,all have the same face ! : Big eyes , tiny noses , a line as the mouth and the typical anime haircuts . I find "Inuyasha " incredibly boring and dumb . This have to be one of the most over -rated animated shows ever made .


First off I want to say that I lean liberal on the political scale and I found the movie offensive. I managed to watch the whole doggone disgrace of a film . This movie brings a low to original ideas. Yes it was original thus my 2 stars instead of 1. Are our film writers that uncreative that they can only come up with this?? Acting was horrible , and the characters were unlikeable for the most part. The lead lady in the story had no good qualities at all. They made her bf into some sort of a bad guy and I did not see that at all. Maybe I missed something , I do not know.He was the most down to earth, relevant character in the movie. I did not shell out any money for this garbage. I almost wish PETA would come to the rescue of this awful, offensive movie and form a protest. DISGUSTING thats all I have to say anymore !


This film is totally unbelievable. The only way a girl would perform this act on a dog is if she had serious mental health issues or had a long history of sexual abuse or was under duress. Yet we are asked to believe that an otherwise 'normal' healthy female just got a bit bored and 'made a little mistake' and oops had a sexual encounter with a dog. What's more it never had any detrimental affect on her ever again except when she tells someone.

Not she was raped by a dog or the dog did something she couldn't resist - she actively initiated oral sex and completed this activity with a pet dog of her own choice. She wasn't on drugs or anything she just 'felt like it'.

The rest of the film seeks to put this action in a light of 'hey it could happen to anyone she's only being honest'.

But really for this to be believed we have to believe that this is a woman who is capable of doing absolutely ANYTHING if she 'just feels like it'. Think about it - could she have considered the rights and wrongs of this action before carrying it out? If she had she would have stopped in her tracks. Human beings have instinctive boundaries for reasons. If we are now to start considering bestiality as a 'cute' little aberration, what is next? Child abuse? Yet the 'heroine' is portrayed as a hard done by, nice girl who had one moment of aberration. If she had been forced to carry out this act by an abuser - the story might have made more sense and I would have been able to accept the storyline. But there is no way that anyone carries out the prolonged activity required and referred to even once - if there is not some deep, disturbance that requires a great deal of psychiatric help. This is NO WAY a one off happening in an otherwise perfect life.

I know this is just a film, but it is through normalising behaviour such as this via the media that society becomes desensitised and more and more awful realities become possible.

I could imagine an abuser showing this to a child to persuade them that it isn't such a big deal and then moving on with their agenda. It could also be used by an abuser to underline to a child not to tell about the abuse - because look how people will react to you if you do.

This is not about truth. The director WANTS people to think it's about truth. This is about degradation and how easily people (the viewing public)can be manipulated into accepting the most appalling concepts if wrapped up in the right way. The watching public are being manipulated, degraded and laughed at.

This is a film in which the actors and the viewers are being humiliated and made fools of in a very sophisticated way by a clever but extremely disturbed film writer.

This film appears to me to be being used as a vehicle for the creator of the film to get off on the excitement of playing with your mind in an abusive manner. I don't know whether it is conscious on their part - but it is the most classic example of Mind F***k that I have ever encountered.

I hope that this doesn't offend anyone too much. But if you watched this film - I don't think there is any room left to be offended by anything any more.


Not a bad concept.I just wish they had taken it in another direction. Its a movie that tries to be interesting by shocking you with bestiality to begin with, which works for most people(prudes with weak stomachs).But besides this there's not much to this movie. Its not funny nor is it romantic so please somebody change that label , and since i already knew that bestiality is actually legal most places and a million dollar industry, i wasn't really shocked. But most people do not know this and i thought that how the movie evolved after the secret came out was just disappointing because it could have been one of those shocking eye opener movies that would teach the ignorant about a fetish that is very much a reality for(yes i did my homework)hundreds of thousands of people.So if you like watching bad movies that you can daydream about how you could make them better while watching them than sure,have fun doing that.


Bobcat Goldthwait should be commended for attempting to do something different with this surprisingly heartfelt film, a cautionary tale about the pitfalls of being honest about everything. Melinda Hamilton stars as Amy, a girl who has had oral sex with a canine in the past on a lark. She struggles with telling her fiancé, John. Of course the truth does rear it's shaggy ugly head. The film deals with the fallout of said escapade. The movie is well-acted by all, save for perhaps Jack Plotnick as Dougie, who never really felt like he mashed well with the picture. And the film while solid enough seems to miss it's mark a few times. Every single person in the film struggles with massive hypocrisy and all our a tad hard to relate to. Bobcat should be commended for doing something different, as I said before, but different does not always equal good and this pales ever so slightly not to Goldthwaits own directorial debut, the criminally misunderstood "Shakes the Clown"

My Grade: C-


I am not so old that I can't remember laughing at Bobcat Goldthwait a couple times. But some where in all his years of drug abuse he lost his sense of humor as well as his brain cells.

From the moment this film opens you can have no sympathy nor empathy for the female lead. Neither will you find anything remotely funny after hearing the opening line. Goldthwait obviously hates himself so much that he needs to degrade in order to feel better- even if it is his own imaginary characters he degrades.

If you ever saw Shakes the Clown you know how unfunny Bobcat was 15 years ago...this movie is worse. It was not even funny by accident It is sad, pathetic and a total waste of time. May Goldthwaits' hands be rendered paralyzed so he can not write another script. Strike his tongue so he can not dictate another unfunny scene. He is sad and pathetic and needs to make room for a new talent dying to get into Hollywood


If one wants to have a character in a movie have a disturbing sexual encounter that would shame that character in later life the only thing left that an audience would see as shameful was bestiality and now it has been done. Judging by some of the other comments even that did not succeed that well. I cannot remember one funny scene though I have to admit, I had to turn it off before it was finished. I did watch a part of the director's commentary and it appears he was as surprised as anyone that the movie was doing well. If you want to get the same feeling you get from this movie but only cheaper, stick your head in a pile of manure and breath deeply.


This movie was such a waste of my money. it was disgusting as well as disturbing. honestly, i would never recommend this movie to anyone. who thinks of a movie where a girl blows her dog?? seriously... it was a waste of my time. i kept watching the movie, hoping it would get better and a plot would emerge but that never happened. i'd rate the movie an F-. This movie should have been rated R for its disturbing nature. I would never let children of any age see this movie. this movie sucks. this movie is horrible. this movie was a waste of my time. i could have spent the night doing some worth my time instead of renting this movie. this movie was a waste of gas money to get to the store and definitely a waste of two dollars to watch it. pretty much, no one should watch this movie. this movie should be banned and burned.


This movie was on the pay channels today and I had nothing to do so I had it on. This has to be the worst football movie ever made. This has to be one of the worst movies period. The premium service on the cable system has a rating system, and they gave 2 stars out of 4. This movie isn't even a half a star. Bad acting, Scott Bakula sinks as usual, Larry Miller?? Sinbad, couldn't act if he tried. Rob Schneider's one liners completely stunk. Fred Thompson should be embarrassed that he was even in this movie. The only saving grace for this movie was the hope you would see Kathy Ireland nude in the shower, not even close. A complete waste of time and of film. If we could give a negative number, minus 9.


this movie is allegedly a comedy.so where did all the laughs go.did the forget to put them in,on the version i watched.as a football movie,it is mildly entertaining,i guess.maybe'm just a stick in the mud,with no discernible sense of humour.or maybe this movie just isn't funny.it is also annoying,with that way over the top "you're a winner"musical score.and the odd thing is,the team sucked through most of the season,only winning the last two games,and the last game meant nothing since they were not in the playoffs.so what is the point? are they celebrating mediocrity?I don't see it.if anybody knows,please let me know.anyway,this movie isn't great or even very good.i'm giving it a low 3*


Necessary Roughness (1991) was a bad comedy/ drama that tried to hard on every level to be a serious film about college football. A lot of current and former superstar athletes appeared in this production during one of the film's comedic highlights. Other than that it's a very mediocre movie. They should have just stuck to making a straight out comedy filled with no realism. Instead the film makers try to play both fields and they end up on the short end of the stick. When will somebody make a decent film about college football that's funny and realistic?

Not recommended, unless it's for free on t.v.


I attempted to watch this, and was highly disappointed. Don't expect intelligent and insightful humor ala Amy's brother David amidst this dreck... it is the polar opposite. But if you're into poop, fart and boner jokes, you'll be in seventh heaven. This is bathroom humor aimed, I assume, at those who've had several bongs, which can only explain why many ecstatic reviewers have heralded this crap as "the best television writing ever." I assume that those who hate such simpleton humor were unable to watch long enough to care to submit a review, but I am just sending out a warning shot to those unaware viewers who are looking for high-end comedy. The characters overact. The shock factor is set to 10. And the laughs are set to zero (unless, of course, you seek juvenile, low-brow humor.)

I made it through 40 minutes, praying the whole time it would turn the corner toward worthwhile entertainment, but alas, it just got worse and worse. And beware of Amy's ever-present and hammy overbite expression - it will set your eyes rolling. It was nice to see cameos by recognizable comedic actors I enjoy, but I can only assume they agreed to participate as a favor to the Sedaris family.

To those who loved it, I'm sorry... this is my opinion. It was so bad it inspired me to write my first review.


Strangers with candy overacts in all the wrong context, the situations are just not funny with the cheesy voices and bad low brow comedy timing, the clear attempt at dry/black/dark humour is obvious and it fails to deliver on all elements of a good joke.

With a high cringe factor and low laugh ratio I was shocked this show went pass the first season, I personally like Scrubs, The Office, 30 Rock, Trailer Park Boys, Pulling, Peep Show, Simpsons, Family Guy and I know what your thinking, these shows aren't weird at all, so some other good shows I've seen are Jam, Garth Marenghi's Darkplace, The Book Group, Asylum and Snuff Box which are original with dry/black/dark humour/satire and are all at least 5/10.

Garth Marenghi's Darkplace especially is cheap looking, overacted and weird, however the context is thought out and works to make it really out there and entertaining too.


"Curacao" is a foreign intrigue drama set on the title Caribbean Island which involves a retired sea captain and bar owner (Scott) and a demoted CIA field operative (Petersen). The film has numerous bad guys, foreign agents and thugs, skulking about the pair of protagonists all coveting something Scott has which they want and are prepared to kill for. A lukewarm low budget tv flick, "Curacao" is spiced up with a couple of babes and use some Carnival street parades as window dressing. Little more than fodder for the bored couch potato. C-


What is wrong with CURACAO ( Also known as DEADLY CURRENTS though what the reasonn for the name change is I have no idea ) can probably be summed up where a woman says to her lover :

" Keep it down baby , I'm trying to sleep "

It's not the dialogue that's the problem or the way it's delivered , it's the fact the actress has has a Central European accent . Nothing wrong with that until it's revealed her character is from Philidelphia in the United States ! This what struck me about this thriller while watching it - The way accents don't match their characters . Apart from the Philly woman with a German accent we see a South African with an English accent , a local police chief who sounds like he's an Irishman impersonating a Gestapo officer and worst of all George C Scott playing someone who's either Dutch or British with an accent that sounds like it might be American tinged with South African . You soon give up following what's on screen and end up concentrating on what nationality a character might be due to the strange way they speak . It's interesting to note that this site hasn't given this movie a country of origin . With so many different actors from different countries you do feel that this was produced by the United Nations

Even if you're not curious about accents or dialects you'll probably have to give up following the action anyway because CURACAO is plot less . Things happen like a boat exploding , and a hostage situation and the hero being recruited as an agent for South African intelligence but you're left scratching your head wondering what the heck this is all leading to . I was lost


It is is very sad to see someone of the calibre of George C Scott in a low budget thriller which would have been better if the original novel was written by Graham Greene and directed by someone somewhat more experienced in the genre. NOT TO MENTION A BETTER CINEMATOGRAPHER. There are so many missed opportunities with the scenery and carnival merely glossed over, rather than captured to locate the movie solidly in the exotic setting of the novel.

Elsewhere in the viewer comments on this site, one very astute observer complained about the variety of diabolically bad accents in this film. Ever since I saw George C Scott as Rochester in Jane Eyre, I have prayed for him NEVER to ever accept again a role which required him to assume a British accent. Just every now and then, he could just possibly pass for British or a very British sounding South African played obviously by an American actor. I can stomach Meryl Streep's extraordinarily laboured accents (both British and Australian) - at least she gets it right even though with every utterance, she demands that we marvel at her skill. Well, I am sorry that Mr. Scott is no Meryl Streep, and it just destroys the illusion - like having Michele Yeoh speak excruciating Mandarin with a strong Singaporean accent in Crouching Tiger etc.

Peterson acts no differently than what we see on CSI. Except he is still very handsome and more or less slim in this movie. He is the Harrison Ford of TV. Same old expressions for every emotion, every situation. No on second thought, Ford has two - perplexed/pained and happy. I have never seen a smile on Mr. CSI!


Ugh. Yes, it's exactly like the McMartin mess, or the horrific arrests in Wenatchee, Washington. In the movie, the mother keeps aggressively questioning her little boy, over and over and over, until he finally tells her what she obviously wants to hear. The court investigators and "therapists" repeat the pattern. The questioning itself is sexually creepy, a relentlessy repeated assault in its own way.

The moviemakers throw in a doctor talking about physical evidence of abuse, maybe to justify the film's point of view: that two- to four-year-olds never make "things like this" up. Well, they will if every adult they know is asking them to. The way this piece endorses such discredited interrogation techniques makes watching it an exercise in frustration for anyone who knows what it takes to get a successful prosecution in real life.

(They also add a special arrest incident towards the end to "prove" their case -- no parallel to this fictional incident ever occurred in real life. Can't say more here without turning this into a spoiler, but you'll know it when you see it.)

Yes, children are abused, sometimes by paid care providers. But to watch a movie which affirms the ludicrous, hysterical accusations against so many totally innocent people, to watch re-creations of the trials that ruined the lives of countless children as well as the lives of the accused -- I didn't think I'd last until the end. It's just too sad, and made more so by the writing team's seeming endorsement of the abusive, paranoid, obsessional questioning techniques that started -- what can we call it? The bonfire of the sanities?

No one I know has ever been accused of child abuse, thank heaven, but my 12-times-over-great grandmother was accused of witchcraft and killed for it. Mobs filled with what they think is holy anger are just as dangerous now as three hundred years ago. Sensational drivel like this -- "These accusations of Satanic abuse are cropping up all over the country, there must be something there!" "So tell the jury that!" -- just eggs them on.

And whoever thought it was a good idea to have kids under ten, some of them under five, play these roles? It's traumatic to watch them delivering their lines; how much more traumatic was it to act these parts? The moviemakers' commitment to fight child abuse apparently doesn't apply to themselves. And what were the child-actors' parents THINKING? "Melinda" (uncredited, at least in the version on the A&E Network in 2005, but I think it was Cassy Friel) and "Teddy" (Brian Bonsall) were terrific. Professionals or not, though, they were too young to be exposed to this material, much less to be paid to act it out. Despite ruthlessly exploiting these real-life children, "Do You Know The Muffin Man" got an Emmy nomination for directing -- which just goes to show how crazed things were, back in 1989.


This movie was total cheese. It stank. The only thing good about it was the acting. Other then that, nothing noteworthy at all.

Big Time Spoilers Coming up! Don't Read Anymore If You Have Not Seen It!

This movie is centered around a family whose happy and wonderful lives have been shattered as a result of their younger son and later as they find out older son have been molested by their daycare providers. Although, they are called liars in court and the defense attorney is a real prick the jury finds them guilty and convicts them.

In the end all I can say to the director is: "The next time you wanna make a movie like this, do it differently".


This movie was terrible. It was so very terrible.

Most annoying was the way the trial was conducted. The defense attorney is allowed to ramble on and on when questioning a witness without the prosecution making any objections. He attacks the children brought to give testimony with cruel ferociousness and repeatedly yells at them that they're lying. These just aren't things that they subject children who have been sexually abused to. The trial is silly and it ruins the whole movie...(Law & Order has spoiled me for courtroom accuracy-ness).


This movie was beyond disappointment. Well acted story that means nothing. The plot is ridiculous and even what story there is goes absolutely nowhere. It truly isn't worth a nickel, buffalo or otherwise..pun intended!


I'm not sure what the appeal of this movie is, but I couldn't find it. It's a really long, barely credible, hardly lucid conversation between three guys on one set.

It doesn't move anywhere, the characters are just totally bizarre, the underlying plot equally so. It's lost on me, definitely a walk out movie.

The one thing that keeps you from walking out is the ever unrealized possibility that it might have some kind of point or meaningful climax, and the fact that, all irritation aside at the banal personalities, they're acted quite reasonably. But you have to brace yourself for endless dialog, wishing on many an occasion that Teach would just shut the %*&* up for a moment.


Zombie movies are hot, I love 'em. Can't get enough. Why I would purchase a film of this caliber goes without explanation, I just really love zombies. Surprise, this really isn't much of a zombie movie; low-budget I can handle, being duped just irritates me.

A group of horror-film clichés hold up in a warehouse/lab/who-knows-what to escape a fire storm outside. Panic, yelling, low-light, and (eventually) zombies ensue.

I kind of feel bad for the film makers, as it is obvious that they really thought they were putting together something good; a serious, scary horror film. It isn't, far from it, it's a boring mess of wooden acting, cheesy FX, poor lighting, excessive dialogue, and over editing.

Things first go awry when it takes a good 10+ minutes for the characters to ever sit down and start to figure out what is going on. It gets worse when another 20 minutes go by and they are still sitting around trying to figure out what is going on. All of this is littered with non-acting and bad dialogue.

Finally some one gets attached (not by a zombie though) and hope flickers just a touch before the characters are again lounging around whining (the only emotion any one every generates) about how much this sucks. Me too guys, me too.

Finally zombies are in the mix, but no one watching cares any more. I think there was some blood and gore tossed in, but I was too busy praying for the credits to roll to notice. And when the screen finally did fade to black I felt even more cheated by the pointlessly 'Cube' inspired ending.

I will give credit for trying very hard, even if it failed miserably. That and the punk chick was very hot if totally under used.

Can't really recommend this to anyone, save for film students looking for 'no-no' pointers.

4/10


OK - I gave it a "3" just because they obviously had no money to make this film, but I feel it might deserve the "2.3" rating it had when I got here. I'm actually helping to raise it's rating, despite being bored for the last hour and a half. I will save the "1's" and the "2's" for the higher budget pieces of crap. At least the makers of "Rise of the Undead" didn't waste that much money. They did manage to waste 90 minutes of my life.

The movie is too claustrophobic for me. The entire movie takes place in the same building, in dark rooms and hallways. With a setting like this, there should have been more action or character development, but there is just a lot of meaningless talk. I didn't get to know any of the characters. There is a schoolgirl and a Goth chick but we never find out much more about them. None of the characters seem really likable.

Terrible movie made on zero budget. No scary special effects. No suspense. Really nothing interesting at all here, folks. I admit I downloaded this from the net. It was free but I am throwing it away.

Sorry to the filmmakers. Better luck next time. This one is more like a soap opera than a zombie movie.


So, you've seen the Romero movies, yes? And you've seen Jacob's Ladder, right? And the later Hellraiser movies? Okay, now let's make a movie out of all three, only let's just jam everything together and make a whole big mess of it, sounds like a good idea?

This movie is terrible. Absolutely god-awful. Yeah, it's an indie flick, who gives a crap? Is that a pass to make filmic excrement? The film attempts to establish credibility by focusing on character interaction, that much is evident. Unfortunately for the writers, they're not good at character interaction. This isn't Night of the Living Dead; the characters are nonentities shouting their inane lines at each other in a vain attempt to be caught by the microphones on set. The dialogue is never interesting. For a movie that focuses so much on character interaction, you'd think the characters would have something more to say than "WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO" "I don't know" "WELL WE'VE GOT TO DO SOMETHING" "Well what are we going to do?" "I DON'T KNOW." "We should leave." "LET'S JUST ACCEPT OUR FATE." "No, we've got to leave." "WELL LET'S LEAVE THEN." "No, maybe we should stay."

This isn't exaggeration, there are exchanges in this film that reach that level of redundancy and inanity.

The worst thing about this movie? Half of it is a dream, and it really has zero purpose. Nothing in the dream has any relevance to anything in the rest of the movie. The writers couldn't decide whether to make a zombie movie or a monster movie and so they just made both. It's patently ridiculous, the cheapest trick in the book, and it's maddeningly insulting, especially since I'm pretty sure they ripped off the idea from Jacob's ladder, which handled the concept a hell of a lot more competently than these jokers could ever hope to do.

And then there's the editing. Years of watching MTV and playing horror-themed video games must have inspired the filmmakers, but it's surely a sad thing they didn't realize what made the choppy editing and obfuscation in those pieces of media effective in the first place. In this film, you will be confused often, and not in the good, David Lynch way, but in the bad "Wait I thought she just got killed, no? Then who the hell was that? Wait, who is that guy? Where did he come from? How did they get here?" kind of way. It's constant and consistently bad.

This movie is a laughable piece of trash and should only be sought out if you want to get trashed with a few friends and laugh at it.

And as a final note: as for the "comedy" people in other reviews are talking about, it's all unintentional. There isn't a single intentional piece of comedy in this film. It's all supposed to be a big serious character study, because the filmmakers want to have credibility in their horror-concept. Sadly, their pretensions don't match up to their ability.


Hey, I'm a fan of so-bad-so-good movies but there's nothing so-bad-so-good about Rise Of The Undead. It's just so-bad and that's it. No redeeming cheese, no unintentional humor, nothing! - boring apocalyptic Zombie (The "Undead" : a few people with hardly any make up) nonsense with lame special effects (if you can call those effects), dumb plot and annoying actors. They also have the nerve to rip off and quote from other (better) movies (Resident Evil, Dawn Of The Dead & Night Of The Comet) and managed to put me to sleep on the side. However, it was Rise Of My Eyelids once the end credits rolled though. My advice: save your money. It's not even worth a rental, unless you want to p*ss off and/or put some people to sleep then go ahead and give it a spin. You've been warned ;)


Do not be misled. This is NOT a zombie movie. Take it from a guy who loves zombie movies, and who rents them all: the good, and the horrendous. Yes, this movie has an extended zombie sequence, but it's basically an artsy-fartsy exercise in existentialist dread, which is a long way of saying it's boring. If you've worked hard all day and want to spend a couple of hours being entertained, rent something else.

"Rise of the Undead" has cheap special effects, mediocre acting, and crummy dialogue. All of that is understandable in an indie, low-budget film, and I can forgive such flaws as long as a movie has an entertaining story to tell. Unfortunately, "Rise of the Undead" hardly has any story at all. Moreover, the acting is not laughably bad so much as non-existent. All of the actors seem to have studied at the Buster Keaton School of Wooden Faces. Would it have killed them to show some emotion? (And no, yelling does not equate with emoting). The one character who actually had some pizazz was killed off first. Granted, there was another character who briefly held my interest. He looked and acted like Kyle McLachlan channeling Norman Bates, but it was too little, too late.

The filmmakers seemed to have forgotten a tiny detail: film is a VISUAL medium. That means lighting your scenes well enough for the viewer to actually view what's going on. And all those artsy jump cuts and close ups might have seemed cool at the time, but all they did was make watching the film jarring and confusing. There is nothing wrong with telling a story in a simple, clear fashion -- just look at George Romero's low-budget "Night of the Living Dead" to see how it's done superbly. And I know these folks had a small budget, but if you can't hire the equipment and technicians necessary to actually make the dialogue audible, then just go ahead and make a silent movie (then those Buster Keaton wooden faces might actually work).

I will say this for the film: the zombies were creepy. Unlike most zombie movies where the undead are shown in all their decomposing glory, the grosser the better, the zombies here were just shuffling, bloody-faced people. It actually worked to make them more like us, and therefore, scarier. That's the reason I gave this movie 2 stars instead of 1.

The sad part about all this is that despite all of its flaws, "Rise of the Undead" does not insult your intelligence. The filmmakers seemed to have actually wanted to make a smart, scary, original movie, and it's a shame that they failed so miserably. If they could just forego the too-fancy editing, buy a few extra lightbulbs, crank up the dialogue, and come up with a real story that actually goes somewhere, then I think they have the talent to make something really good.

Trust me: do not waste your time on "Rise of the Undead."


I can't give it less than a star, I tried. At this moment, Im not sure if Im halfway through it or not, but I stopped actively paying attention around the time part of it was revealed to be a dream. Or not. Or maybe it was. I think viewers who posted a comment that didn't include the descriptions "horrible" or "awful" or "made me want to swallow a bullet" are probably being nice because it is an indie film. Don't listen to them, listen to me- there is no nudity in the movie, skip it. I needed ten lines to submit this warning, so I will also say that the goth girl that some users have described as "hot" is fat. She has fat elephant legs.


With the Terrible acting, the awful dialog, the multitude of bad humor, the crappy plot and over terrible film. This has to be the worst film i have ever viewed in my life, and i'm the king of finding bad movies. For the effects, they just threw fake blood on people and things, didn't spend the time to create wounds and make special effects worth anything. Most people making low budget horror flicks at least do something like clads of tissue or something to make a gashing wound. The dialog was far from even decent and the acting was without direction or effort. They just threw some actors on a set and said, have at it. I swear i've seen better films from my film I class at school. How did this ever get a DVD release?


Rise of the Undead starts as some huge nuclear type blast rips through an unnamed American city, a few people survive in a building by leaning on the door so it'll stay closed & keep the nastiness out(!). They argue amongst themselves for ages, then a monster thing arrives from seemingly nowhere & begins to kill them of one-by-one...

Written, produced & directed by Jason Horton & Shannon Hubbell one has to say Rise of the Undead is terrible. The script takes itself very seriously but makes little sense, the first thing I asked myself was if there's this huge nuclear blast type thing going on outside destroying the entire city why are these people I'm watching still alive? Why is the building they are in still standing? Then I asked myself when was something actually going to happen, the entire first 20 minutes is set in one room, actually that's a bit generous it's more of a corridor as the main character's argue. Then it turns into some Return of the Living Dead (1985) rip-off with a Government created virus which turns people into zombies before one of the most abrupt, pointless & seemingly random plot twists I've ever witnessed which renders most of what has just happened a complete waste of time. Then for the final 30 odd minutes Rise of the Undead turns into some strange sci-fi type thing as something which resembles a ball of energy floats around killing everyone, was I the only asking what this floating ball of energy thing is & where it came from? Getting back to what was happening outside what was the reason again? Oh that's right we are never told. Rise of the Undead is a mess, the character's are awful & aren't even given names, the twist about halfway through will have you tearing your hair out in frustration, the dialogue sucks, nothing is explained & there's virtually no story here. The final 10 minutes (maybe a bit more) of Rise of the Undead features no dialogue whatsoever & the film just suddenly ends.

Director's Horton & Hubbell were obviously working on a low budget, the entire film is set in about two rooms & three corridors! The photography is awful, they use annoying colour filters seemingly at random & sometimes it really does look like Rise of the Undead was shot on a camcorder. There's no special effects, there's some fake blood splashed around but no actual make-up effects to speak of. There are some CGI shots of the city being engulfed in flames which look alright but the floating ball of energy creature thing looks terrible. There is one baffling shot early on where two people are sitting against a corridor wall & talking, for some bizarre reason their heads are cut off at the top of the screen! Just their lower bodies from the neck down are seen yet nothing else is happening in frame, they are not moving & there's no else there but for some strange reason their heads are cut off the top of the frame as they talk to each other! It's quite an odd thing to watch actually.

With an ultra low budget of about $10,000 & according to the IMDb shot in two weeks I have to congratulate the makers for getting Rise of the Undead finished & distributed but that's where my congratulations stop because otherwise this has awful production values & is set in about three corridors which are located somewhere in New Orleans in Louisiana as that's where Rise of the Undead was shot. The acting sucks so I won't dwell on it.

Rise of the Undead sucks, it sounds like a zombie film but in all honestly it isn't, everything about it is sub par & I know the filmmakers were working on a low budget but that's not really an excuse as far as I'm concerned. Definitely not recommended.


This is the worst movie I've ever seen. Boring, illogical, terrible. Don't waste even a minute in your life to watch this crap! I hope the directors won't make any other movie because this movie bankrupts them. The movie seems to be created in one or two days with some friends of the directors (if we can use this word for these 2 guys). They use only camera in hand. Many scenes are in darkness and nothing can be seen. Lots of scenes (80% of the movie) are with conversation only. ! There are movies like Vampire vs. Zombies which you can laugh on but this one is simply bad, no point to making such movies. Please, stop Jason Horton and Shannon Hubbel. Don't make more movies!


"Beowulf" is like a very bad game : no characters, no story, no real dialogues, bad fights ... It's probably the worst movie in the history of cinema. It's deadly boring, a lost of time. I'm really sorry for Christophe Lambert, who visibly doesn't know how to choose a role. If someone suggests you to see "Beowulf", believe me : run like mad.


Christopher Lambert attracted me to this movie. What a waste! The plot has more holes than my string vest the special effects were not very good, it did not take much to figure out who the creature's mother was and the creature owed more than a little debt to Predator. Anti-climatical this movie could have been done a whole lot better. It does raise one interesting point however. When is Hollywood going to discover the rich vein of European folklore out there just waiting to be mined?


GOOD: Technomusic accompanying medieval swordplay. Also, the movie looks sleeker than most b-movies, but let's face it: Quake or Doom has more atmosphere.

BAD: Unintelligent plot, no acting and totally unbelievable universe. I am usually able to see the potential of even very bad movies; heck, I love a good B-movie like "Split Second" and the likes. But this one has has nothing but boredom and cliché to offer... Totally predictable from start to end. Oh, and I forgot the lousy special effects, they look more like an old Playstation game than anything out of myth! The use of a classic poem to sell this sucker offends me!

CONCLUSION: Quite simply boring. If you want to see Lara Croft, buy the game, it's way sexier!


Another B-movie for teenagers, based mainly on CGI-effects, industrial soundtrack and some medieval imagery. It's a pitty that the legend for Beowulf is used in such uninspired manner. I am a fan of Christopher Lambert, but I have to admit that he is getting worse as an actor and his movies too. Rent it if you are teenager only.


Without doubt, this is the worst movie I've ever seen.

Poor acting. Poor script. Poor direction and poor production.

Why did they even bother? This entire movie was total nonsense. Suspension of disbelief can only carry so far, but this pushes the limits completely.

For a movie with no humour content, the audience laughed disturbingly often...


Once I heard that the greatest and oldest preserved Germanic heroic poem was transformed into a film it almost became my obsession to see it. The first glints of its appearance I caught never disappointed me. A futuristic interpretation With Lambert our favourite highlander and Mitra, tomb raider to be,in leading roles seamed appealing, though some doubts came to life (an important female character in Beowulf?)... Two hours ago I saw the film. After I had read the director's name my world fell apart. As I said - from that point on, there was not many surprises. First and foremost, the film has NOTHING to do with the original Beowulf if we disregard a couple of violently and pointlessly stolen names. If they had not stolen the names and declared it to be a new story, it might have passed as an f-class action stupidity with nice costumes and scenography. This way it is simply a crime! An attack on a legend and its ideology as well as on common sense. Ok let me be positive for a second... apart from the general electro-goth atmosphere which is nice it also has good music. That was it for both the positive part and this comment.


I've seen this movie during a festival here in munich with a huge crowd of real fantasy fans. At about the middle of the movie one part of the audience was sleeping and the other part was booeing. Boring dialogues, badly choreographed fighting sequences, a terribly dumb story and even worse special effects. Well, at least the actors hadn't much to do, except for looking concerned or (in case they were female) showing their breasts in the right light. Even Götz Otto, who was among the audience admitted afterwards that ge could understand the disappointment of the viewers. Be warned, folks, of the cheapest fantasy movie ever........


This was one of the worst movies I have ever seen! The only advantage seeing this movie is that the next movie can't possibly be worse. It's childish as hell (but Children aren't allowed)


I like Christophe Lambert as an actor. He has played in several good movies (Highlander, Subway, Greystoke, ...). But I can't even think he has played in that movie. The story is nearly nothing, the special effects are very bad and the actors also. To resume the movie, I have only one thing to say : it's the first time that I go to watch a movie and want to leave after 10 minutes.


bad acting , combats are very awful , 3-4 second between each text , bad music , bad effect and always the same plan during the movie. if you want laugh go it 2/10 ( for the fool laugh)


Christophe Lambert once said he was still making movies only to make good and easy money. When I see his latest releases, I can believe that.

Beowulf is, all in all, in the "good" part of the crap movies : there are some good thrill scenes, indeed. The actors themselves aren't too bad. But the plot is silly, the "Mortal Kombat"-like music has nothing to do here, the ending is really s****y...

Really, the only good thing about it is that me and my friends could laugh about how uninteresting it was. I even wish I wasted my money on something else.


Took a very good book and completely butchered it. Nothing was as it should have been. Some of the best parts of the book were missing, including the major point of the whole book. Simply the worst adaptation of a Stephen King novel ever. This movie made the mini-series for IT look good.