Final Fantasy: Advent Children is and will remain a classic example of style over substance gone wrong. Instead of drawing upon the memorable characters and captivating mythology of the original game, Square Enix has churned out a frivolous montage of incomprehensible battle scenes. Yes, I said "incomprehensible." Did you know that Tifa knows blindingly fast Kung Fu techniques that magically cause the camera angle to shift every second? That Cloud can effortlessly suspend himself in midair for a full minute while wildly swinging away with his 2-ton sword? The English dub is mediocre. While not egregiously bad, it is far from well-produced. The quality is comparable to that of an average anime dub.

Here is what I'd like to say to the die-hard FFVII fans who can't stop gushing over this movie: Advent Children is the best fan service you could have hoped for from Square Enix, but even a trashy CG flick like Galerians: Rion had a better story. You'll be embarrassed by this movie and its lack of thought in due time. The days of its novelty are numbered.

Movies like Advent Children make me question whether Square Enix recognizes the potential of its franchises. After all (and no offense), it's a Japanese company. Japanese developers can deliver fun games, but most of their offerings are disappointingly shallow. They are utter psychos, however, when it comes to production quality. Advent Children features some of the most breathtaking renders in CG history, but that doesn't save it from its convoluted plot and cardboard characters.

Any fan who followed this film knows Sephiroth comes back. Bending the story to accommodate his resurrection was a big mistake.

NOTE: The one point I give this "film" is in honor of the 10,000 enslaved Japanese animators who gave their lives to render each bleached blond hair on Cloud's effeminate Caucasian head.


Pretty visuals and a lot of fights make not a good movie. And that is precisely what happened here.

First off, let me admit, I am yet to play FFVII (I intend to order it soon). However, I did do research to familiarise myself with the characters and the story. However, not everyone has the luxury of time to research things like this, and Advent Children demands that knowledge of FFVII is required.

In spite of incredible visuals, I can't say there is too much thats new. We've seen it in Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within, and apart from some better movement, I can't say they've done lots of super-daring stuff with this.

The fight scenes - well, they are a bit of fun. Still, how could we ever doubt the result of any of them. This one was boringly classic - there were three fights with the bad guys, following the standard procedure (the hero, Cloud, gets smashed, then he almost gets there and gets smashed, and then finally wins). The reason I say it was boringly classic was that it is used a great deal, but in this case is poorly executed. I'll touch on that later.

The English dub seemed fine to me, though I didn't watch it in Japanese, so I shan't judge the Japanese dub, but only the English one. I'll say this - I've heard plenty of better ones, even in my limited repertoire.

And now, the plot. Ummm... what plot? Let me be frank, this movie is nought but a fan service, a chance to see the FFVII characters on the big screen with lovely eye candy. As I said earlier, the fights seem to just happen for no reason. The opening fight is never explained, Kadaj seems to have neither ambition to destroy the world himself nor any real motivation to do anything nasty. Cloud sits around moping for the entire film, and pretty much everyone else gets an obligatory cameo.

Really, FFVII was an ensemble piece. Advent Children is anything but. If they'd managed to give everyone some significant story role (Star Trek: First Contact proved it was possible, I might add), then this could have been a lot better. Naturally, that would have changed the plot too, which, lets be honest, is almost set to be better than the one we got.

Characters were also generally either unused or virtually forgotten. The members of Avalanche (thats the group Cloud worked with in FFVII, for those who don't know) get 2 scenes (3 in the case of Vincent Valentine, and some get even less). Hell, the bad guys get more lines than these guys, and that is pretty bad.

The music... well, I don't care if Nobuo Uematsu is God Himself, he botched this film big time. Advent One Winged Angel was the only decent piece. Otherwise, he couldn't decide whether to be epic (and orchestral) or fun (with electric guitar). When he switched from one to the other, you felt it as though he'd taken a sledgehammer to your head.

And that last point on whether this movie was epic or fun... it tried to be both, and failed miserably. Honestly, you can't please everyone and do everything. The movie also tried to be deep (you can go epic and deep, or fun and deep, but all three is too much), but failed here too. The last scene, which is reminiscent of a baptismal ceremony, was thrown in there for what looks like the sake of it. You don't need to be a Christian to just shake your head and cry there. That scene just didn't belong in the film (and nor did Aerith's frequent appearances - she's dead Jim!).

Given just how fantastic I've heard Final Fantasy VII to be, this movie is nothing short of a gigantic disappointment. Because of the beautiful visuals, I give it a 2 out of 10.


I give this movie a 4 cause I'm a die hard fan of the video game series. the graphics and animation are excellent and its nice to see the whole gang in CG form Sephiroth's still cool

now the reasons it only got a 4 well the characters feel like planks of wood with some of the worst voice acting I've ever seen(I've watched epic movie)

the movie just seems cloud orientated so much so that it make even the fans embarrassed with cloud this and cloud that. clouds mentioned so much that it make you not want to see him in this movie

the villains have the award for the worst villains ever (i was more scared by the wicked witch of the west)

all the other characters in this movie are simply put in the movie for a nod to the fans and doesn't take it further then that

wtf's with the chilly chally???

summary: waited 9 years for this movie and this is what i get a large pointless and boring cut scene i beg the head of square cenix to shoot the man responsible for this burn every copy of the movie and any one involved in it and create a new movie from the ashes's (it would be nice to make the movie in live action and based on the original game)


So after the initial disappointment of the first Final Fantasy movie, which seemed to bare next to no resemblance to the Final Fantasy series, Final Fantasy: Advent Children has released itself to a warm reception and, now, a dedicated fanbase. And the reason for the films success is understandable as it has lush graphics, fast moving fight sequences and some cool as hell characters. However, if you haven't played FF7 then it is likely that you will not enjoy this film as it's storyline carries on from the game without previous explanation and your likely to get lost from the plot even if you have played the game. Secondly, there is no character development, without previous knowledge from the game your opinions on the characters are limited to 'cool' and 'not cool'. Of course, for FF7 fans the film is almost guaranteed to entertain, at least for nostalgic reasons, and it's cool seeing all the characters you grew to love from the game rendered in some pretty amazing computer animation. One last complaint, the film, at least in my opinion, attempted to cram too much into less than two hours and therefore the last half hour or so seems horribly rushed. If you played and enjoyed FF7 than it is a worthwhile watch, though nothing too special. If you have not played FF7 then it is best that you play it first before watching this film.


This show lasted for most of the 1980s, and had its moments, but plots were usually dishwater thin and often painfully unfunny.

Terry Scott and June Whitfield were wasted in this sitcom, they both deserved better, but it does provide some fond memories and I have found myself smiling at some repeated scenes. June Whitfield's talent for comedy is allowed to shine through on occasion (when she is not being a foil to Terry) and she really is clever.

The 1980s is the last decade where you will find this kind of middle class, middle aged comedy, and many people remember it fondly, but I prefer to remember the decade for alternative comedy and the biting satire of Spitting Image.


This cosy middle class sitcom became the subject of much hatred by the new breed of talented comedians in the 1980s, such as Ben Elton. Did it deserve such malice? Well Terry and June was never clever, it was never a well-written tale with different threads which intersect at the conclusion. It was the show your mother and father and probably grandparents watched. They chuckled rather than laughed, but they were never likely to be offended by the show, so the fact that it never challenged them was immaterial.

One Foot In The Grave suffered initially because it appeared at first sight to be just another Terry and June.

A few days after the death of Terry Scott an episode was broadcast on terrestrial TV, and that has been its final outing. There have been few repeats of the show on any TV channel.

Thankfully TV comedy has advanced since Terry and June. It's hard to find kind words for it - Terry Scott did make the best of weak scripts.


A pretty transparent attempt to wring cash out of the thriving British club scene, Sorted is a film that shows promise in certain departments, but does very little else. A perfunctory thriller plot (which is there merely to string the club sequences together), variable acting and a pretty ludicrous script, all stop Sorted from being the showcase that director Jovy obviously intended.

However, although Jovy is sometimes over indulgent (especially when using the often ill-fitting dance music) he does show potential, and the lack of an anti drugs message is enormously refreshing. Overall however, the film is a wasted opportunity, and the prospects for a great clubbing movie remain out there somewhere. Watchable nevertheless.


A rather disappointing film. The club scenes were ok, but over done. The plot was thin and boring. It's only redeeming features were some of the characters. The Chemist and The DJ were pretty fun characters. Tim Curry's character was just bizarre and stupid.


There were so many reasons why this movie could have been great. I'll give you three.

1. Sienna Guillory. She is extremely hot in this movie and was the reason I chose to watch it in the first place.

2. Tim Curry. Amazing bad guy and I always get excited seeing him in movies (even Home Alone 2).

3. Jason Donovan. For all you Aussies and Poms out there, this is a rare treat. Former Neighbours star 80's heart-throb dressed in drag selling drugs.

However none of these things nor the fact that the movie is about the drug/rave culture managed to make this movie even remotely interesting. The script was dull, the performances ordinary and despite the scenes with J.D and any scene with Sienna I found everything about this movie pretty passe.

3 out of 10.


After Kenneth Opel's rousing story of the invigorated me back into the pleasure of reading during grade school, I had high hopes for this series. The story of an underdog bat voyaging across country to reunite with his colony captivated my imagination and resonated deeply with my burgeoning imagination.Upon hearing of this series, I began browsing Bardel Animation's site and liked what I saw. The character design looked impressive and the fast-paced plot seemed to have been stretched respectably across a thirteen episode arc. Much was my disappointment, then, when I decided to watch a rerun early one morn.

The opening episode shows our hero, Shade Silverwing, pursuing a tiger moth in the deep hours of the night. Chirruping an echolocatory song, we see a nifty if crude CGI effect illuminate the moth, and the chase takes on a frenetic turn as the tiny insect creates numerous illusory copies of itself do deceive its pursuer. As a lover of biology, I had a decent understanding of the principles in place (tiger moths can sense the sounds their predators use for echolocation and spin a sonic cover for themselves) but without such exposition I would have surely been lost. A minor quibble, I thought. Surely they director will fill us in momentarily. I waited in vain.

Once our protagonist roosts down with some of his fellows, we are treated to some of the dullest dialog I've ever seen on television. Chinook, Shade's childhood rival, begin taunting the diminutive hero with the stupidest lines I've ever seen on a show. I can understand the writers not producing Shakespeare, but one would think they'd have had some social contact in their lives - surely enough to make communication seem natural. Oh, how wrong I was.

The voice acting, while not horrendous, hardly was a shining example of human achievement. "Oh Shade, you're broken the law!" Shade's mother sighs emptily. "You must come with me, young one." croaks Frieda, the wizened elder of the Silverwing Colony. The actors try, but it hardly matters at this point, as the story becomes less and less compelling with each pass minute.

While each episode deals with a problem of the week, as is typical of with most television series, overarching story arcs pervade the saga, for better and worse. While the main point of the story is Shade's reunion with his family, later episodes tack on other story arcs, involving cannibalistic bats from the Southern jungles and a brewing war between birds and beasts. The writers try to do too much at once, fighting to compress as many promising ideas as possible in the hopes that it will grab audience interest enough to keep the bloody show going on. Unfortunately, these attempts are futile to all but the eight to ten year olds at whom this show is aimed.

While it's nice to see Canadian media be perpetuated, it would be all the sweeter if the enjoyability of the series wasn't limited to the immediate family of the animators or frothing fans of Kenneth Oppel's books. There are worse things out there your children could be watching than Silverwing, but far better programs are out there, too. Pass on the mediocrity and read the books instead.


Having already seen the original "Jack Frost", I never thought that "Jack Frost 2" would be as absurd as it is. Boy was I wrong! Then again, A-PIX movies have a way of showing unbelievably bad material, even worse than you might expect. I believe this is the first A-PIX sequel, and it may be an indication of what to expect in the future: more A-PIX sequels.

It's hard to watch this without laughing, especially during the later parts of the movie in which Jack Frost's offspring (which are essentially snowballs with eyes, arms, a mouth and sharp teeth) start killing people with the typical comedic dialogue and silly voices to go with it. They are shown both as puppets (with a stick underneath to move them) and as computer animation, which I have to say looks very cheesy. The computer animation surprised me, as the first "Jack Frost" had no such effects.

I'd strongly recommend that you see the original "Jack Frost" before seeing this one (both of which it would be preferable to watch with a group of friends) to get the full amusement out of it, and because it would make more sense ("sense" being a relative term).

Now only if there was "Uncle Sam 2"...


Ill-conceived sequel(..the absurd idea of having the killer snowman on the rampage at an island resort where there is no snow or cold weather)brings back the spirit of the psychopath, returning thanks to a scientific experiment providing foreign elements which reintroduce life to his molecules(..it's the best I could do to explain this preposterous concept).

I could go into depth about how he winds up at the island in order to slay numerous tourists, but I simply find no reason to bother because it'd all be so exhausting. Anyway, the filmmakers think it wise to kill off the pretty girls not ten minutes after their arrival(..I mean seriously, why worry with even introducing them to us if we can't enjoy our eye candy no longer that this?!).

The "snow anvil" murder scene takes the cake. Ice icicles protrude from the beach's sand so that a victim can fall on them. Oh, and another girl is stabbed with a pair of weenie tongs.

Look I get what's coming to me when I sit down to watch a killer snowman movie..such a ridiculous supernatural slasher will either tickle your funnybone("Oh, it's such a wonderfully cheesy horror movie!")or have you pondering why the hell you're wasting time with such nonsense. Jack Frost has the power to freeze water(..then how were they able to melt him in the first film?)and causes the island resort to snow. One sequence has Jack freezing pool water, encasing a swimming model under the sheet, result being her drowning with nowhere to escape.Oh, there's also a recreation of the "tongue stuck to the icy pole" bit from The Christmas Story("Cowatonga dude!").

I gotta hand it to the cast, though..they're real troopers for trying to make this wretched material entertaining. Christopher Allport(..perhaps unwisely)returns as Sam, to face his old nemesis, as does Eileen Seeley, as his wife. The attempts at tongue-in-cheek humor(..for me, at least) fell flat, but the cast soldiers onward trying to make the most of a very difficult situation, with spirited performances they do their best to rise above the pitiful premise and woeful dialogue.

A development occurs which increases the danger towards those still around to face off with Jack, his genetically altered water molecules, thanks to the introduced foreign elements, allow him to withstand coolant/anti-freeze, and, even worse, he now can reproduce..through indigestion, Jack hacks up what appear to be snowballs which hatch to reveal little snowballs with black eyes, mouth and sharp teeth! The killer snowman costume and little snowball puppets introduced later in the film might produce belly-laughs if you are in the mood for such shenanigans, but I personally found this junk rather hokey(..that's the purpose behind it, I suppose, cheap guffaws from those willing to embrace this)and unbearable.The snowball offspring is an obvious homage to Gremlins where we get a bar scene where the little bastards are celebrating in number over terrorizing victims at the resort. The weapon against them..bananas! It's explained that when Jack went to kill Sam in the first film, both fell in a truck bed full of anti-freeze(..an icicle emerging from Jack's belly was penetrating Sam's chest when he pushed them out a window into the truck bed, and I guess in their being "being linked" by the icicle, Jack inherited Sam's banana allergy, or so this is what we are led to believe!)and in doing so both "merged" in a sense.

Phew, such a film as this defies simple explanation. It's a film with effects and plot so terrible, one might find the presentation enjoyable because of it's many failings.


Yes, in this movie you are treated to multiple little snowmen on the attack in apparently a very warm climate so yes this movie is definitely not to be taken seriously. It is in fact a much worse movie than the original as at least with that one the whole production looked like it cost more than a couple of bucks and a video camera to make. It has its funny moments, but really playing off the cheapness of your movie and making that be your intended laughs is kind of weak film making if you ask me. You can not come up with a good story, your effects are going to really be bad, hey let us just make the movie look as bad as possible with horrible one liners and we have our movie. The first one at least had a somewhat credible story as the snowman in that one attacked during the winter and not what amounts to a resort. It also had better effects too, this one is just a step or two ahead of "Hobgoblins" as far as the monsters are concerned and you really want to be more than a step a two above a bunch of hand puppets. Still, it makes up for all of this with a super ending that depicts a great sea vessel being taken out by the mighty frost. Actually, I am just kidding, but really it was the funniest part of the movie.


this movie sucks. did anyone notice that the entire movie was shot in like 2 rooms. there are NEVER any outside shots and if there are its obviously film taken from somewhere else. this movie blows hard, painful to sit through too. stay far away.


-may contain spoilers-

Clearly, who ever made this film must have had a lot of connections. I just can't see it any other way. What really surprises me is no one used the name Allen Smithee, and more surprising, everyone involved didn't use this name.

Anyhow, where to begin. The bad dialogue, the crummy costumes, the sorry looking film stock, the unintentional comedy, the over-the-top characters, and more inconsistencies than George W. Bush's college career. I don't know what was funnier, the guy losing his arm because of a snowball, or the slow motion scene where all the baby Jack Frosts' were getting killed. Also, one of the great lines of all time was uttered in this film. "How do we know it's him?" Like there's another mutant snowman who can talk and kill people with snowballs! A great camp film, but a very bad film overall.


Jack Frost 2 was a horrible, terrible, sadly pathetic excuse for a sequal to a great movie. The original, was a low budget comedy horror film about a murdered who was turned into a snowman after an accident with some toxic waste. And the snowman went around murdering people, and avoiding blow dryers like the plague. This, however, was a far cry from the quality of the original. It seems like this even had a lower-budget because for some reason, after an hour into this film, I still hadn't seen the snowman. Some revenge he's getting if he's always in the form of Ice cubes with a cheesy voice-over and a little shake of the cooler he rests in to give animation to the character. Disappointing to no belief, even for a fan of bad cinema.


Alright, we start in the office of a shrink, and apparently not a very good one. The main hero from the first Jack Frost is in the shrinks office blurting out random rhymes about Jack Frost. Gee, alright my brother is yelling ''Turn it off!''. Anyway, back to the crappy movie.

The shrink has his speaker phone on and is letting his secretary and her friends listen in on this heroic insane sheriff. I suppose he is supposed to be the hero from the first movie, but he looks nothing like him!. Yadda yadda yadda, they laugh at the poor sheriff, yadda yadda. Now some people are digging up the anti-frozed snowman, yadda yadda, now we're in a lab with some type of doctor people.. I don't quite see how this has to do anything, but their poking the anti-freeze/Evil killer mutant snowman with needles, heating it, shocking it, adding strange and bizarre chemicals to it, the whole nine yards. Nothing. Alright, they give up and leave it in a fish tank. One of the doctors leaves his coffee on the top of the tank. The janitor walks in, cleans stuff, bumps the fishtank and the coffee spills the tank which makes Jack alive.

Behold the power of mocha! Now somehow he is in..uh.. i believe the Bahamas... but it looked more like Hawaii.. But it couldn't be Hawaii! Unless they spent all of their budget on the dang air plane tickets. Bah.. I wont spoil the rest of this rotten movie, so you'll have to rent it and watch it your self... Er... i wouldn't suggest doing so though.... Sheesh..


In all, it took me three attempts to get through this movie. Although not total trash, I've found a number of things to be more useful to dedicate my time to, such as taking off my fingernails with sandpaper.

The actors involved have to feel about the same as people who star in herpes medication commercials do; people won't really pay to see either, the notoriety you earn won't be the best for you personally, but at least the commercials get air time.

The first one was bad, but this gave the word bad a whole new definition, but it does have one good feature: if your kids bug you about letting them watch R-rated movies before you want them to, tie them down and pop this little gem in. Watch the whining stop and the tears begin. ;)


If you like bad movies (and you must to watch this one) here's a good one. Not quite as funny as the first, but much lower quality. A must-see for fans of Jack Frost as well as anyone up for a good laugh at the writing.


Please, If you're thinking about renting this movie, don't. If you're thinking of watching a couple of downloaded clips, don't. If I had my way, nobody would even have to read this summary.

The acting, despite being one fo the high points of the movie was still pathetic. The director was probaly a sadist. The witty one liners were something you'd expect from a room of highly paid anti-social 7 year olds that eat paint-chips for breakfast.

The problem with this movie, is that it tries to be a movie like "Evil Dead 2"(do not under any circumstances associate these 2 movies) in that it's so bad it's funny. But it also tries to be funny at the same time, and fails so overwhelmingly to do so, that your sense of humor is left too crippled to do anything but set off your gag reflex in an attmept to save itself.

I could go on for much much more, detailing just how awful it really was, but I think it would strip me of my will to live just to continue to think about it. If you need me, I'll be off trying to boil myself so that I might feel clean again...


Horrible movie. This movie beat out revenge of the living zombies for the WORST movie I have ever suffered through. What the !@$% were the morons who made this film thinking. Was it supposed to be scary. Because man let me tall you it wasn't. It was so dumb it wasn't funny. We all know that tropical islands are the natural hunting grounds for killer snowmen. And those stupid baby snowballs. Stupid Stupid Stupid Stupid Stupid Stupid Stupid Stupid. Fake snow and lousy actors. OH and frost looks nothing like he does on the box. DO NOT WASTE YOUR TIME. REnt it and destroy it.


Why did I have to go out and buy (yes buy!) JACK FROST 2: REVENGE OF THE MUTANT KILLER SNOWMAN??? Maybe it was a burst of temporary mental derangement? But I'm guessing it's because I kind of enjoyed the first JACK FROST. It was a silly but funny horror-comedy which had some okay effects by Screaming Mad George. That and the fact that on the back-cover of the sequel there was this nice picture of this guy impaled by this giant icicle (coming out of his mouth with a lot of blood and all). So I thought: if it's as idiotic as the first and has some nice splatter/gore in it, it should be fun, right? Well, I was so dead wrong!

Let me first say that the movie deserves some credit for having an immensely insane and retarded plot. I mean, a mutant killer snowman on a tropical island that spawns mutant killer baby snowballs which can only be killed or harmed by bananas??? As much as I love the premise, I really hated the movie. First of all: while the first JACK FROST looked like an actual movie (seemingly being shot on real film and all), this sequel has the look and feel of a third-rate soap-opera. It has this way too slick shot-on-video look. The lighting is just plain awful (bright white spots for the day look, and stupid colors like blue and green at night). The acting... well don't even go there. The dialogues range from stiff to extremely senile (that Jamaican man was just moronic, saying "man" after every sentence). And when it comes to the voice of the killer snowman, all I could think of was a seventh-rate Chucky from CHILD'S PLAY spewing dumb and supposedly witty one-liners before he kills someone.

The best joke was were one guy asks "Why are you talking to your watch?". And the best scene was undoubtedly the one with that beautiful Asian chick popping up out of nowhere and taking a swim in the pool totally naked (thank god for that!). Oh, yeah, and that little scene over the end-credits with those two Japanese dudes on a miniature ship being badly dubbed had me laughing too. But the worst thing about this movie was: Where was the gore and splatter action everyone is talking about? There were plenty of occasions to show some decent gory killings. A lot of people were killed off in original ways here, but all off-screen. Like I've read in many other comments, there were indeed nice set-ups to a head explosion, a crushed body, eyes being poked out, tongue ripped out,... but on the crucial moments the editor cuts away to some blood splatters on the floor or nothing at all. That frontal shot of that British guy being impaled (from the back-cover of the DVD) wasn't even in the movie. I only saw that particular killing filmed from the back (meaning I didn't see sh!t!). I was waiting throughout the whole movie for that to happen, and then I get to see nothing?!?! What a let-down! Could it be that I saw a cut version of the movie? That would be a shame, 'cause only a decent amount of splatter-fun could have saved this movie if you ask me. Seeing a lot of killer snowballs reduced to bloody pulp just didn't cut it for me. Speaking of those snowballs: they were done very poorly. They made MUNCHIES look like state-of-the-art 'animatronics'. But I guess that was the whole point of it. At some point, the special effects crew even turned to some laughably bad CGI. Boy, you really have to see it to believe it. Best is to not see it, actually, 'cause this flick is just too bad (okay, I did laugh with it, for it kept getting worse and worse). Just stick with the first JACK FROST (1996) and you'll be okay (just bare in mind that it's a pretty silly horror-comedy but fun in it's own right).

It's funny, but writer/director Michael Cooney somehow must have realized that he was a pretty bad director after JACK FROST 2, and then focused on writing. Turns out he then wrote two pretty good thriller screenplays for THE I INSIDE (starring Ryan Phillippe) and IDENTITY (starring John Cusack). So the man seems to have some talent after all.

Now it would be far too easy to give JACK FROST 2 the lowest rating possible. So I say one point for that naked Asian babe doing the skinny dipping and one point for those completely retarded snowball babies. Way to go Mr. Cooney!


This is the worst film I have ever seen, bar none. From the flimsy-looking, poorly lit sets, to the laughable acting, to the infantile plot and shoddy, drawn-out action sequences, this film is so bad, its hilarious. For about ten minutes. After which you will be reaching for the remote or the power socket to end this film non-experience. Although it was obviously made with the entire production and acting staff's collective tongue rammed in cheek (please God), I found Jack Frost 2 so dreadful as to be unwatchable for more than a quarter of an hour. If you have not had enough of it after this time, you must be indulging in drug abuse.


Jack Frost 2 is out of the question, I'm actually surprised people are allowed to make these sort of movies.

As Sam and his wife take to the Tropicana for a relaxing Christmas, Jack returns to kill off the fun and take on a revenge with inbreeding...

Don't take a swip at this film at all, most people say its a laugh with your mates, but frankily its a waste of time. If the people who made this film can get a job by doing what they do, they can at least take the time and effort to write up a better story, especially the cheesy character names.


Jack Frost 2. THE worst "horror film" I have ever seen. Why? 1)The premise is WELL beyond ridiculous 2) The damn thing doesn't even have legs to move on! 3) It escapes AFTER being completely submerged in Anti-Freeze (first film) 4) Get this...It travels all the way across an ocean of SALT WATER to a TROPICAL island to get revenge on the sheriff that did him in the first film. 5) "Killer Snowballs". I have yet to be drunk enough to see "Ginger Dead Man" so as of the writing of this, Jack Frost 2 hold the distinction of being THE stupidest "horror" film ever. Even Surpassing the inaneness of it's predecessor (if you can believe that!).


I remember when I first heard about Jack Frost. I was in Video Ezy at Miranda with my family on a monthly video hiring tradition. It was at this time that I worked up the courage to venture over towards the horror section of the store. Browsing the various titles, I finally came across Jack Frost. The cover was enough to convince me that the film was beyond my viewing pleasures. Years later the film disappeared, only to be replaced with the inevitable yet unnecessary sequel. I once again ventured to the horror section and picked up the case only to come to one conclusion: the film would be scary but not intentionally.

Jack Frost 2: Revenge Of The Killer Mutant Snowman (quite a title) follows off where it's predecessor left it. Sheriff Sam is seeking counseling after his ordeals and Jack is now in the form of anti-freeze. To escape his past, Sam and his wife head to an island hotel where he is in the company of a wide variety of slasher film stereotypes including busty female models, thick headed sports jocks and Caribbean staff. However, Jack is released from his liquid grave and is back to his icy methods. He heads over to the island and proceeds to kill anyone that would prove to have an awesome death. Only Sam can stop him.

Let me just say that this is a straight-to-video film so it's bound to be bad. But this is terrible even in the eyes of other over the top films. The camera work is poor, using a camera that would make a soap opera look majestic. Half the actors look like they've come out of a porn shoot and the other half look like they've come out of a retirement home, but in actual fact they've actually come out of an asylum. There is an extensive use of special effects used in the film which tends to alternate between bland puppetry and CGI that can be bettered by an infant, and the death scenes are mostly off screen showing us little of what has happened to the hapless, yet deserving, victims. But the film is most memorable for it's killer one liners such as "There's something that needs a little Christmas stuffing" and "I know pronounce you officially f***ing dead!" Ultimately the whole purpose behind a film like this is to make a popcorn flick for those Friday nights of boredom and even it fails at that. To make a sequel to a film that was a poor slasher with a concept that a child would find unbelievable must've taken some nerves of steel or a total frontal lobotomy. To director Michael Cooney thanks for wasting my time. To everyone else avoid like arsenic.


Hello it is I Derrick Cannon and I welcome you to the first ever Cannonite review show. My movie for this week was debatable, what route what movie, what excellent four star epic would I choose, guess what I decided to pull a one eighty and go the other route, I've decided to review a movie so atrocious that it totally killed what could have been a very unique concept. The movie I will review today is Jack Frost Two revenge of the mutant killer snowman. The Stars in this movie include Christopher Allport as Sam Tiller, Eileen Seeley as Anne Tiller, Marsha Clark as Marla David Allen Brooks as Agent Manners, Sean Patrick Murphy as Captain Fun, Ray Cooney as the Colonel and Scott MacDonald as the killer snowman himself Jack Frost.

It's hard to believe that this movie was in the same series that gave us the incredibly funny Jack Frost(loved the carrot scene),but it's even harder to believe that this is the exact same cast. The movie was ruined for me as soon as they arrived on the island and Captain Fun was introduced. What was the point of his character and how did he fit into a horror movie?The only possible reason I could see was that they wanted to give us a character that was total killer snowman fodder. Sam Tiler seemed more paranoid then he did in the original, his babbling about anti freeze was one of the most pathetic display I had seen in a movie. His wife however was one of the few bright spots. She played her role as the main woman to a hilt. She was a voice of reason in film of pure idiocy. The scene where she figures out how to kill the snowmen was one of the most anticipated parts of the movie. Ray MacDonald once again did a great job as Jack Frost despite what he was given. If it wasn't for such weak characters he could have been immortalized like Chucky,Freddy and Jason. Laugh if you must but when it comes down to it Jack Frost had spunk, he had humor, and most importantly he had an undoubtable vicious streak.

This movie could have been so much more, it could have been a continuation of a great franchise, instead any plans to make a Jack Frost three have been canceled.

This movie gets a two out of ten for me, and it's lucky that it even gets a one.


Jack Frost returns with an army of Styrofoam balls that can only be foiled by being shot with super-soakers loaded with margaritas. How's that for a plot? The film hinges on such a ridiculous premise that it barely raises an eyebrow when characters are killed with BBQ tongs and are impaled by carrots. You might even say the whole movie is skating on thin ice (ba-boom-tish).

Admittedly, there are some fantastic one-liners including a remark about the Murderous Coconut Shark.

Fair enough times are hard, but that does not excuse the willingness of the actors to take part in such utter tripe.

For those fans hoping to see Jack Frost, be prepared to accept him as merely a phallic carrot creeping up the beach with corny voice-over commentary.


Talk about rubbish! I can't think of one good thing in this movie. The screenplay was poor, the acting was terrible and the effects, well there were no effects. I can't believe the writer of this movie did Identity, everything in this movie made me sick to start to finish.

The front cover of the video box shows a showman with shark like teeth and scary eyes. I looks like a scary villain, but like the old saying "never judge a book by it's cover", the whole villain looked like a cardboard cut out. One part in the film a girl gets killed by a salad tongs, terrible. The setting was bad enough, like they could of set the whole thing in Lapland but no, a tropical island instead.

I took this movie as a spoof, which I think they wanted it to be but the only thing that made me laugh in a bad way was the tacky effects. You can argue that I haven't watched the first one, but seeing this I would be safe if I wouldn't attempted it.

The biggest joke in this movie is the effects, the snowballs looked like they were home made, and that carrot was a complete embarrassment. If I would of guess the budget of this movie would of probably be between 8 to 9 pounds fifty. The producer in a last minute panic must of grabbed the actors for the street gave them the script told them they have 6 minutes to practise these lines and shoot on a island.

Lastly the acting in the film was painful, it was like the actors forgot their ordinary lines and made them up the way through.

In conclusion I give this film: 0 stars out of 5


I had noticed this movie had been on Cinemax a lot lately, so this morning, I decided to watch it. I had just finished the Infiltrator, which is a great movie, and I thought this looked good as well. From the description the cable had, atleast. This film was awful. It's slow, the pacing is horrible, it feels as tho it lasts 4 hours. There's no real plot to speak of...agh! How can anyone say anything good about this movie. Rickman is good...but he always is...the other two characters work well, but there's no real story to support any of it. After 2 hours, and you sitting there wondering what on earth is going on, where on earth is the plot- it ends with a surprise that frankly just made me sick. Don't bother with this one.


This is a classic B type movie that you'd rather not waste your time and see. It started well and i thought it will grow up as a good thriller, but i was mistaking. All movie long you get the feeling that soon something interesting will take place and it will suddenly turn into a tensed thriller, but that doesn't happen. It runs slowly and peacefully til the end, with nothing interesting in it. Just the ending was unexpected and original, but that's it. Vote: 2.5 out of 10. Oh, one more thing. Why is this movie rated R anyway???


It is easy for a movie that tries to be suspenseful to wind up being merely uninteresting. It happens quite often. Not only is Dark Harbor uninteresting, but it is very poorly done. Scene after scene is tacked on to an otherwise overdone premise. A troubled couple picks up a troubled stranger only to find more trouble.

Some movies build tension by building the story. Dark Harbor keeps adding on to its story but never building upon it. I was hoping that like other movies, the suspense would finally explode. It never does. Also, the characters have no continuity from scene to scene. They may act one way in one scene, but then act a completely different way in another scene. At first, you think that they are merely out of character, but by the end you realize that they are not really characters at all. They are just props for the final twist. The final ten minutes try to be shocking. Instead, it's rather lame and uninteresting. The only thing that was shocking to me was that the movie finally ended. At less than ninety minutes the movie still feels way too long.

This isn't one of those low-budget gems. It's more like a counterfeit watch that breaks as soon as you take it home.


This is really bad, the characters were bland, the story was boring, and there is no sex scene. Furthermore, it lacks drama, the conflict is minimal causing it to be extremely slow paced. Nothing happens in this film, you would expect a sex scene, but they just have a kiss. The plot revolves around three characters, a man, his wife, and a stranger that they pick up from the high way. The couple invite the stranger to stay with them, because he is homeless. At this point you would expect the stranger to have sex with the wife right? No they just kiss and thats it. Also, this film contains no action, no comedy, no drama, and not even suspense. Makes you think that maybe the studio did not even read this script!!!!


The movie had an interesting surprise. Somewhat psychologically gripping. And the makers could have ended it tastefully without making it just another of a rash of movies put out by Hollywood promoting homosexuality and/or other sexual deviances. This could have ended with a "pay-off", but there were other motives behind the pen. What torques me off is that the mud slung in your face AFTER you've seen the whole movie. Like the disappointing "The Talented Mr. Ripley". Yeah sure, I'm just another puritan. This gay content tarnished the whole film. I wouldn't positively judge a movie for artistic or entertainment value if its sole purpose was to promote an ulterior political motivation, more so for this.


WARNING!! This review may contain spoilers. The back of the box is misleading. It says all this crap about kids telling ghost stories, which they do, but then it implies that they will all be killed by some killer in the woods. This doesn't happen. The stories they tell are a little interesting, specifically the one with the dog and all that licking, but most are rather boring, monsters in the woods, some mute girl, and the main one, the whole movie.


Okay, so the movie went straight to video. If I had paid to see this, I would've been disappointed. But, at 2 am in the morning, alone at night, it's a pretty good fright! (hey, that rhymes!)


Overall I'd call this a disappointing performance. It attempts the old "Horror Anthology" approach, but fails miserably. The acting was bad, and so were the stories. Any skin shown in the movie was obviously random, just to attract the R-rating for sex. Typical, I guess, but bad nonetheless. Take your $5 and rent a REAL movie instead!


This is by far the worst and most stupid show I have ever seen on TV. It is almost physically painful to watch an adult (well in his twenties) doing nothing but torture and mock his parents, who always seem to have no clue what so ever about the stunts they are forced to endure by their dimwitted son and his equally stupid friends. Of course I know his parents are in on it, but I really hate how they always act like they are caught completely by surprise. It seems fake through and through. And I really hate the intro of the show, in which a voice over asks "Bam Margera, what WILL he think of next?!?!" (I think that's how it is, anyway), and Bam himself answers: "Whatever the f^*k I want!" - WOW! Bam is really a hell raiser - living at home with mum and dad! -of course the word "f^*k" is replaced with a tasteful beep, but we get the message. Bam is the real deal rebel - at least in his own eyes. Of course Bam and his posse of numb sculls aim at an audience of teenage boys, and of course it's a MTV show, but please, raise the bar a little. It's painfully predictable and stupid, and therefore nothing but boring.


Anyone remember the first CKY, CKY2K etc..? Back when it was about making crazy cool stuff, rather than watching Bam Margera act like a douchebag, spoiled 5 year old, super/rock-star wannabe.

The show used to be awesome, however, Bam's fame and wealth has led him to believe, that we now enjoy him acting childish and idiotic, more than actual cool stuff, that used to be in ex. CKY2K.

The acts are so repetitive, there's like nothing new, except annoying stupidity and rehearsed comments... The only things we see is Bam Margera, so busy showing us how much he doesn't care, how much money he got or whatsoever.

I really got nothing much left to say except, give us back CKY2K, cause Bam suck..

I enjoy watching Steve-o, Knoxville etc. a thousand times more.


Bam Margera of the Jackass fame is back with his own reality show, and not only is it not as funny as Jackass, but it's also amazingly stupider! This has to be one of the dumbest shows ever conceived. Sure there are worse reality shows but none are as mean spirited or as dumb.

Bam Margera has made it big, and his parents decided to piggy bank off of his fame. Bam and his parents, his uncle, his crew of idiotic friends all live together, and while Bam and his buddies are off breaking things and getting into mischief, generally his parents are at home being stupid. When Bam's parents aren't at home being lazy, they're being tortured by Bam, especially his father. To add to the humor, we are treated to his fat uncle Don Vitto who is constantly out of it, and never paying attention.

This show really is like a toned down version of Jackass...toned down in that there aren't stunts, instead Bam and his buddies just go break stuff, and do lame stunts, and meanwhile loud music plays to make it all the more awesome. This is not funny in the least. I can't imagine a dumber show than this because there is not an ounce of intelligence found here.

If you are a big fan of Bam Margera, and want to see one of the many follow up/cash-in sequels to the Jackass series.

My rating: * out of ****. 30 mins. TV14


VIVA LA BAM This "Jackass" spin off focuses on the (obviously scripted) adventures of Bam Margera and his pals (Johnny Knoxville, Brandon Dicamillo, etc). This show, while it has its fair share of gross-out comedy and crazy stunts, focuses mainly on Bam's torturing of his parents.

I'm sorry to say this, Bam, but... you're in no way as cool as you think you are. This ego tripped show is not only painfully unfunny (and yes, I liked Jackass), but also narcissistic beyond belief. The overly stylized intro ends with Bam coolly explaining that he's going to do "whatever the f***" he wants to. How about you do something that is actually funny? I liked "Jackass" for what it was worth. The camera-work was horrible - any idiot could have made a better show with a camcorder in their parents' garage - but at least the show moved at a steady pace and never felt boring between the crazy, dangerous or simply disgusting stunts the pals performed.

Not so with "Viva la Bam". We follow our hero around as he plays pranks on his friends and tortures his relatives, but never does it feel like anything else than really lame and scripted comedy. The stunts and pranks are mildly entertaining, but presented in such a tedious and dull fashion that they can barely make you smile.

"Viva la Bam" is a poor spin-off of that does little good but feed Margera's already too big ego. I don't recommend this lame and unimaginative show to anyone.


I have not watched every jackass episode. It was mildly entertaining if nothing else was going. But after watching Jackass #2 i was fond of Bam and Dunn. They had a nice attitude in the movie jackass so i figured i'd tune in on viva la Bam. Boy was i mistaken. Seriously, you could pair a bunch of 2'graders, provide them with the same budget and i bet they could knock off something more creative on the screen. I mean, C'Mon MTV!! At 23 where most people are tuned in you give us this rubbish.

Everything seems so forced. You don't know the characters because there's no attitude at all. You can't appreciate Bam or Dunn, or anyone for that matter. If there would just be a tiny tiny doze of thought. Anything we won't forget as soon as next shot goes on.

They finally manage to create a good shot and you like whats going on. You sit there, just waiting for their reaction, and then some jerk closes the scenes with two lame sentences and bang. Was that the close for that shot or what, please?. If i had been there i would freak out and laugh. Do some insane stuff and have my adrenaline pumping but these guys... Just scripted stupid reactions.

Yes they get a few chuckles of the audience by cheap gross jokes, or gigantic jokes which in my opinion are such a waste of cash.

Many many normal humans which was not taken under the Jackass wing could in a heartbeat write a far funnier script. Or impress with visual camera work. Even spontaneous wannabe cool guys without a script would pull of a better job. MTV could in a whim bring more soothing material on the screen. You just need to fire the writer of this stupid show.

Some scenes actually require a bit of courage and therefore 2 stars.


Reading the other user comments, the review by A666333 has articulated most of what I was feeling throughout this film- predictable storyline, cliché versions of lesbians/heterosexuals (i.e. straight woman becomes a lesbian while concluding that her husband is abusive and aggressive).

Also, the score was severely disappointing. It was bland, soft, sentimental elevator music- another common cliché in movies about lesbians. The movie would have had a few interesting dramatic moments if they had not been destroyed by the music.

A few scenes concerning sex and eroticism also struck me as attempts to titillate and raise shock value, including parts of the final performance scene. The conventional "hot and steamy" moments were as boring as the overly sentimental score. For example during the pool scene, the women are kissing, and then the camera pans along the abandoned wine glass, the flowing water, the sound of their heavy breathing over the soft crashing of waves.

The only elements I liked were the costuming and arobatics. They are well-choreographed, and the development of attraction between the two characters felt very natural during the training scenes. I genuinely smiled during those, and during the last scene with the police officer. But they were not enough to balance out the negatives or make me enjoy this film.


My Take: Even splendid underwater photography can salvage a familiar script and paper-thin characters.

For those who haven't already got enough of the FREE WILLY pictures, FLIPPER might serve up a decent rental. Others are (heavily) suggested to stay away. Although FLIPPER is harmless affair, it hardly showcases anything for the adult audience (unless it's your first time to see a dolphin).

A remake of a 1960's TV show and film, FLIPPER may have sound like a good idea back then: A dolphin charms the life of boy and a girl, they help ave the environment by first getting rid of toxic wastes thrown in on the sparkling waters of the Florida Keys, and at the same time, battle a shark and a salty sea baddie who happens to be the one responsible for the toxic dumping and also happens to hate dolphins. But even for the 90's, especially if an eerily similar film like FREE WILLY was a recent hit, FLIPPER is just another harmless yet occasionally empty summer splash movie for the kids. Although the animals (this, in case, is the main dolphin, a clumsy pelican and a realistic-looking hammerhead shark, typecast as the villain) and the pristine underwater cinematography steal the show, there's nothing much in FLIPPER to steal from anyway.

The story is completely predictable, something than nowadays even a 6-year old may find evident. The (Human) cast, led by a pre-LORD OF THE RINGS Elijah Wood and an out-of-work Paul Hogan, have rarely anything to do but stand around and look pretty. Their acting skills, whatever they may be to this movie, is rarely revealed on screen, unless you consider the "acting" talents of cheerful Bottlenose Dolphin. I guess not trying to recommend FLIPPER as mindless family entertainment won't be fair, but anyone over the age of 10 (No, make that 8), are better off renting or buying something else. Besides, the film is about 95 minutes tops. That might just give you enough time to something elsewhere without worrying about your kids. That alone might be worth the rental.

Rating: ** out of 5.


I saw this when it came out in theaters back in 1996. I remember I was already familiar with Elijah Wood's work (that's right, he made stuff before "Lord of the Rings"!) and the merchandising tie-ins to the film were pretty abundant ("Flipper" water guns were even circulating).

Adults were reminded of the old movies and TV show and for nostalgia's sake took their kids to see it, who were excited because it was a movie about a dolphin and a stupid boy.

Unfortunately it wasn't what anyone expected and flopped severely. You know a movie's in trouble when a boy swims away from a Hammerhead shark in the middle of the ocean, and a pack of dolphins scare the shark away, and the kid -- instead of getting out of the water into a boat -- floats in the water for five minutes thanking his dolphin for saving him ... apparently he hasn't taken into mind that the shark is still out there, perhaps even below him.

Another problem is Paul Hogan. He looks old, crusty and tired of recycling his Croc Dundee shtick. By now, no one even remembered "Crocodile Dundee" much less Hogan, and I half expected him to suddenly start pretending he didn't know what a hair dryer was for the sake of fish-out-of-water/social-satire laughs.

All in all this is a really poor "family" movie that is amateurish and almost hard to watch at times. I hated it when I saw it in theaters back in '96 and I hate it more now.


It's probably a cultural thing---somehow, the natives of this country have been conditioned to find this stuff funny. I have experienced this phenomenon first-hand, during an open-air cinema event, where this film was shown before the feature. Most of the indigenous audience laughed, and no, this wasn't in a sanitarium or a clinic for retarded children, this was in a well-to-do area, and the audience consisted mostly of educated adults.

So it must be possible, somehow, to find this amusing, but honest to goodness, I have no idea what it takes---maybe it's in the air or the water, prolonged exposure to which causes this condition. Something must cause it, obviously, the only thing I can say is that I am quite sure what doesn't cause it: the movie itself.

There are no jokes in it. It's brain dead, stupid, nonsensical, unfunny, lame. It's, in short, a waste of time. Any Tom and Jerry is funnier, heck even funerals are funnier.

Just in case you have been fortunate enough not ever to have seen any of the Stooges' performances: It's three guys behaving, running, even talking like retarded infants, causing all kinds of unfunny mayhem, with no plot, no real purpose, and no real conclusion. It's like ugly Teletubbies without the cute costumes.

Sitting in a crowd watching this garbage in this country can be quite exasperating, because you feel like you are at a party with a bunch of potheads and you are the only one who hasn't smoked anything.

So unless you are prepared to intoxicate yourself to make this bearable, or come equipped with whatever it is that makes people think watching three ugly old men behave like morons is funny, my advice on this is: Stay way. Far away.


Sadly a great opportunity to utilise a superb cast to bring King Lear up to date. However, instead, we got a contrived family drama that appeared to dip into Lear when the writer had run out of ideas, the cast worked hard but it just didn't gel. Recently Stephen Harrigan showed how to adapt and update the classics with his screenplay for the magnificent TV movie "King of Texas".


This movie has more on its plate than a sumo wrestler and the result for the viewer is indigestion. There are some good performances, but the subplots are extraneous and largely unresolved.

In addition, I found all the characters unlikeable, and if you can't identify with at least one character, there isn't much to get excited about. All in all, this is a classic example of trying to do too much with too little.


The story is derived from "King Lear"; the setting is a farm in Iowa. Here's a test for this kind of thing: if you find yourself asking, "Why did so-and-so do such-and-such," and the answer is, "because that's what happened in 'King Lear'," you know that the film has failed. Well, that IS what happens here. The father figure in this story isn't living his own life, he's mimicking a fictional one. But there's more wrong with the film than this.

Jocelyn Moorhouse is ambitious - far more ambitious than I think she realises. She's trying to take the King Lear story and completely change the setting. This is a task in itself. The likeliest result is that the transplanted story will die, and nobody will quite be able to work out why (although there are enough successful transplants, like "West Side Story", to make it worth trying). But she's ALSO attempting a revisionist retelling. In the version of "King Lear" she wishes to create, Reagan and Goneril command our sympathy, and Cordelia is a villain. This is a task in itself, too.

Succeeding at either task is hard; succeeding at both at once is impossible. In fact, succeeding at one while so much as attempting the other, is impossible. If we are to look on the very same events from a different moral perspective then the events must BE the very same events - which means there can be no tampering with setting. If the story is to be transplanted, alive, into a different setting, its moral heart must keep beating the whole while - which means there can be no tampering with ethical perspective. Moorhouse was bound to fail in not just one but in both of her endeavours. And so she did. ...Naturally, it's possible to attempt both tasks, fail at both tasks, yet by some fluke hit upon a work of art that's good for independent reasons. I mention this because I haven't read Jane Smiley's novel, which, for all I know, IS good for independent reasons. But the film isn't. If there was nothing else wrong with it, there would still be no getting around the fact that it's just so thoroughly, excruciatingly DULL. The very fields of corn are even more boring than they would be in real life - which needn't be the case, since off the top of my head I can think of four films ("The Wizard of Oz", "North by Northwest", "The Straight Story", "Kikujiro") in which the cornfields aren't boring at all.


**** Possible Spoiler ****

If you were making a serious movie involving a powerful, but aging father with three apparently ungrateful daughters, featuring actors of the highest caliber, with great cinematography and a beautiful Midwestern setting, now where would you go with it? Why, you'd fashion a modern tragedy after "King Lear" of course.

That's what I was expecting. That certainly wasn't what I got. What I got was 105 minutes of feminist tripe--one long harangue about man's inhumanity to woman. Why, there wasn't a decent male in the entire story.

You see early on where this film might be headed, but you can't believe anyone would waste all these fine actors and craftsmen on that trite scenario--you just want them to get on with the King Lear theme. But it never happens; and there's the real tragedy if you ask me.

Aside from the panorama of glorious rural heartland, about the only thing worth watching in this film was that wonderful chameleon, British actor Colin Firth, practicing his Midwestern accent. Now there was a treat.

3/10


Dear Mr. Seitzman, Or Whomever I May Hold Responsible For Mr. Seitzman Not Meeting His Rightful Fate Of Being Eaten Alive by Rabid Wolverines;

I do not know you, and so cannot comment on your character; for all I know, you give to charities and help little old ladies cross the street. Still, I must insist, for the common good, that you never write another screenplay as long as you live. Put down the pen, step away from the laptop!

If you refuse to heed the pleading of wounded brains, I have watched a movie or two in my life, and I believe you will find my counsel helpful:

1. Do not include love scenes in which overwrought teenage boys name the body parts of their girlfriends after US states. If you must pen such a scene, please do not name the breasts "New York" and "New Jersey"; it causes unnecessary speculation as to which cities occupy the nipples. Also, it is almost incomprehensibly stupid and annoying.

2. Do not rely solely on John Hughes movies in order to reinforce class distinctions.

3. Do not bludgeon the audience over the head with exhausted clichés. Yes, yes, Kelley and Sam stand out in the rain, and it cleanses them of their cares. We get it. Yes, the roses continue to bloom in Kelley's dead mother's greenhouse, even though every other plant has begun to rot. It Is A Symbol Of Their Love. It is also very painful when applied via blunt-force trauma to the backs of our heads. For the love of God, Mr. Seitzman, we get it. We all get it, all across the land. Amish people, the hard of hearing, unborn babies - we all get it.

4. Do not require the actors to perform mime sequences. Ever. No, never.

5. Did I mention that you should ease up on the trite symbolism? Because the audience can draw the parallel between the rebuilding of the restaurant and the building of the relationship between Kelley and Sam without any help. Truly. We get it.

6. Go through your script, and cull out the following lines, and any lines resembling them: "I don't know what we are anymore." "I don't want to lose you." "He's just like the rest of them!" (And its corollary, "Daddy, you don't even know him!")

7. Yes, yes, she's in heaven, running around in a field. We get it.

8. And in other news, we get it.

I have seen dozens of terrible movies in my life; I never expected to suffer for your art, and I would have just left the theater, but an elephant with the words "DOOMED LOVE" painted on its side fell from the sky and pinned me to my seat.

In closing, your writing bites, you owe me ten dollars, and I hate you.


..that separate good, memorable movies from movies like this. Its not entertaining, touching, funny, interesting and at times feels a little sub-human. The principals act like they are other-worldly, in the worse way, when they are supposed to be relating to each other and the audience.

Starts out conventionally enough. Rich kid gets new car for graduation but the dean says he can't have the car until after the ceremony. Goes joy-riding nonetheless, and stops in the diner on the wrong side of the tracks for a quick argument with the local yokels. Wise-asses the waitress/girlfriend of the head yokel. Shockingly, they play chicken until they accidentally burn down the diner they left three minutes earlier (aren't all diners five feet from the gas station?).

They told they have to Pay The Price in court, so the only reason to get this 'fish out of water' to stay in town is to come up with the scenario that both boys have to assist in the rebuilding of the diner. Worse than that, the rich kid in staying with the family of the un-rich kid..in the room above the attic. That 'room above the attic' has rescued many a person in need of a bed..

Rich kid inexplicably is treated well by the girlfriend, who never mentions to him that he nearly killed her. This does not bode well, of course, with her boyfriend, and is never fully explained. You don't know why Sam (Leelee Sobieski) falls for Kelley (Chris Klein), or why Jasper (Josh Hartnett) allows it.

Chris Klein is tolerable, Leelee completely intolerable, and Josh does not register much of an impression. The character with the most life is the judge that sentences Kelley and Jasper to help re-build the diner. She gets off at least one funny remark, which is more than anyone else does. Everyone is so morose and humorless that you will feel a little sill if you even think of smiling while the movie is on.

The ending is one way to end the piece, not the most original, but at least it was over. I don't enjoy trashing a movie that some little girl somewhere in the world might really love, but since I am not one, I have to. The nicest thing I can say about this movie is that its not mean-spirited, and although it fails to compel, its innocence and home-spun, corny dialogue comes from a nice place. 4/10.


I watched this movie to see the direction one of the most promising young talents in movies was going. Unfortunately, with this movie, Leelee Sobieski has chosen a path not only well worn, but completely free of any meaningful destination. This movie used every hackneyed trick in the book to leave the screen, tap you on the shoulder and politely ask if it can have your heartstrings so that it may give them a good tug. Romance can be done well, and when it is, the viewer is left feeling the love portrayed on screen. During the emotional climax of this movie, I laughed. Heartily. To save you the time and money, I would suggest, instead of seeing this movie, you have a meal of Karo syrup and Velveeta. It's about the same.


To be fair, it has been several years since I watched the bile committed to celluloid known as "Here on Earth," so forgive me if my memory of the film is a little sketchy. I'll stick with the main points which plague the soul of the unfortunate viewer.

Scene One: Chris Klein, after having been thrown out of prep school (because he looks like a seventeen year old--yes, very believable), gives what I assume is his valedictorian speech...to a field. Let me repeat that for you--a field. I think we're supposed to be moved by the combination of shame and eloquence he is failing to express. Klein has the delivery and facial expressions of a cardboard cutout. He is a decent looking piece of cardboard, but little more.

Scene Two: After some joyriding and teenage pyromaniac hijinks, Chris Klein and Josh Hartnett do some damage to the local diner, of which he is forced to rebuild. Of course. Because who better to help with construction than some random moron who crashed into it/ burned it in the first place. Better yet, let's have said random moron move in on Josh Hartnett's girl, Miss Sobeski, the girl he fancies for...her equally wooden line delivery?

Scene Three: Chris Klein's character is making out with Leelee Sobeski's character and decides to name her various body parts after the states on the eastern seaboard. My soul weeps. Really, how can this scenario turn out well? Surely you must alienate several million people if you imply their home is equivalent to Miss Sobeski's more...erm...feminine areas. Secondly, naming her breasts after New York and New Jersey prompts some confusion as to whether Miss Sobeski is actually freakishly disproportionate.

Scene Four: Leelee is running. She falls down. This gives her...knee cancer. "We always knew it could come back," her father(?) says. Right. Knee cancer. From tripping. Perhaps I missed something. As I said, it's been a few years. Surely I missed something. Didn't I? For the love of God, please tell me the girl did not contract KNEE cancer from falling down.

That scream you just heard was my soul dying.


A fine young cast is wasted in this empty, mawkish, manipulative film that tries to be a combination of both a cute comedy and an insightful drama. The plot moves so slowly that the 90 minutes seems endless as characters do nothing but mope and emote. The dialogue is filled with stilted cliches and fortune-cookie attempts at pseudo-philosophy.

Apparently aiming at being a moving and profound look at life and love, the film ends up being merely pretentious. The only real weight is the burden that the talented cast is forced to carry as best they can. But, never fear -- they are held up by the puppet strings of the contrived plot.


*** This comment may contain spoilers *** Warning: this does contain spoilers I have seen some pretty lame films in my day. And that only stands to reason seeing as I see about 80 films a year. I would have to say that out of those 80 films I see at the theater, maybe 5 are really really good, 15 or 20 are not that great, 40 or 50 are okay and then maybe 5 or 10 are absolutely terrible. Here On Earth falls into a category unto itself. This is one of the most predictable, vehement, despicable films I have ever seen. It is loaded with unlikable characters, maudlin situations about after-school-special kinds of topics and enough fluff in here to make THE YOUNG AND THE RESTLESS look like American BEAUTY. And I am not being unfair. This is an awful film.

This is the story of a rich guy, a poor girl, a poor guy and a small town that makes fresh cookies every day for all of it's town folk. Are you getting warm and fuzzy yet? Let me continue. One day, the rich snot comes waltzing into town with his new graduation present that his dad has bought for him and he insults the pretty girl at the diner, almost gets in a fight with her long time boyfriend and then races him and destroys the little diner that she works at. So he is sentenced to a summer in the small town where he and the boyfriend have to fix the diner together. What this does is gives us plenty of opportunity to see Chris Klein with no shirt on so we can understand why the girl at the diner would fall for him. He has abs!!! Oh and he is rich!!! And.... he is the biggest jerk with no respect for anyone. He is James Dean, he is a rebel that doesn't give a damn!! He is rude to everyone in town, he doesn't want to associate with anyone that is trying to be nice to him and he acts like a spoiled rich brat. But Leelee Sobieski still falls for him. There is no reason given as to why she does, she just does. Oh, pardon me, that's right I forgot to mention that he likes the same poet that she does. Well if that doesn't get you wet then I don't know what will.

Here On Earth also has some of the most predictable moments I've ever been privy to in film. There was one point when I left the theater to get some popcorn and read the graffiti on the wall of the bathroom and I told my fiancée exactly what was going to happen in the next ten minutes. Upon my return she just laughed and said I was right, even when I said that there was going to be a dancing scene. And furthermore, the disease that she suddenly contracts is cancer. This is the most beautiful cancer patient I have ever seen. Have you ever watched a cancer patient die slowly? They lose weight, they lose their hair, their gums begin to rot. It is not a pretty picture. Sobieski glows after she contracts cancer, like she is pregnant. What an insult to people that have watched love ones die slowly from this disease. And how do you contract knee cancer from falling down in the field?

Now I realize I have seen way too many movies and this causes my cynicism to run rampant at times, but this is ridiculous. There wasn't one thing to like about this film or the Chris Klein character. He is a jerk, he is obnoxious and he never once tries to make peace with anyone around him. Here On Earth is not only a bad film, it is an irresponsible one. This received a 4.2 on the IMDb voting chart, and that is way too high. This is an embarrassment to screen writing and whoever gave the green light to this being made should not only lose their job, but he or she should have to promise never to step foot near a script again.

0 out of 10, and that is being generous. This film should be shown at film schools as how not to write and direct a film.

If you are bored and really need something to do and your choices are cleaning a farm full of cow manure or watching this film, choose cleaning the cow manure. It'll smell better and you'll feel like you've done something good with your two hours.


Why did they have to waste money on this crap?!

WARNING! CONTAINS SPOILERS!!!

The plot: down-to-earth-good-kind-girl meets a rich-snob-ignorant guy. Her boyfriend gets jealous and with the guy, they burn down a resturant? (Over an UGLY girl?) Guy has to stay in town to build a new resturant, perfect for the love story to begin. But, hark!!! The girl is dying!!! Isn't that a surprise boys and girls? But she teaches him love life, and enjoy it. He's sad she is dying. She dies. He is sad. But has now learned to love life.

What's the moral of the story? When, dying, teach another person to love life.

LIKE EVERY OTHER LOVE MOVIE EVER MADE!!!!

AAAAAH! This movie was the crapiest thing I have ever seen!!!! Did the director want to try to make this plot original?! AAAH! And the friggin' girl would not die!!! It took her a half hour?! I felt no pity for the charactors, and the love story died the first hour of the movie.

1/10

DON'T WATCH THIS MOVIE, UNLESS YOU WANT TO BE BORED OR GET A HEAD ACHE!!!!


***SPOILERS*** ***SPOILERS*** HERE ON EARTH / (2000) 1/2* (out of four)

Mark Piznarski's "Here on Earth" holds the record for a movie containing the most recycled material in 96 minutes. Literally every contrivance, cliché, and familiar plot element are somewhere in here; there is simply nothing unique, original, or fresh about it. God, what an agonizing motion picture to sit through; I wish I saw the film during its theatrical release last year so it could have earned on my year's worst list. This is the kind of movie where the story makes itself instantly obvious, and goes downhill from the opening credits, and worst of all, takes itself seriously. "Here on Earth" is clearly one of the most horrible, painful movies to come down the pike in some time.

"Here on Earth" is a teen heartthrob film, so it must contain some of Hollywood's most prized young men who are attractive and inexperienced enough to accept a role in a movie as bad as this. Chris Klein and Josh Hartnett fit that vary description, and take the lead roles by storm. Klein plays Kelley, an arrogant and insolent student with a wealthy father (cliché number one). He is to graduate as the valedictorian and attend Ivy league college following in the footsteps of his father (Stuart Wilson). This sets up the "I don't want your life," cliché in which the father tries to control his son's life, while the son resists rebelliously. Throw in Kelley's deceased mother who committed suicide a while back. When his father brings home another woman, he brutally questions his intentions (the "no one can replace mom" cliché counts as number two).

Josh Hartnett plays Jasper, a character on the opposite side of society to Kelley. His family owns a local diner. Enter his long-time love interest, Samantha Cavanaugh (Leelee Sobieski) a waitress at the diner who covers for her sister (who has no purpose whatsoever rather than controlling the following scene) when Jasper and Kelley act like childish morons by racing their cars and (oh no) crashing into the diner, causing it to erupt into flames. (Conflicts between the rich and poor will count as cliché number three.)

The bungled car chase sets both Kelley and Jasper up for a contrived and plausible conflict. They get in trouble with the law, but because this movie feels the need to exist, the local judge orders them an alternative to serving time: they must work together to help rebuild the diner.

The two boys work hard during the summer growing strong and getting a nice tan. Samantha's eye catches Kelley, and romantic sparks fly. Jasper is jealous, but wants what is best for his true love (cliché number four). Her parents (Annette O'Toole and Bruce Greenwood) disapprove of her little romantic triangle (cliché number five), but she continues two timing Jasper without a second thought. Her father also happens to be the local sheriff, how surprising (lets count that melodramatic nugget cliché number six).

The contrived romantic feelings between Kelley and Samantha count as cliché number seven. But Samantha's relationship with Jasper is never defined, so how can there any romantic tension? If the film is going to induce involvement in Samantha's choice between the two young men, then we need to see both characters from both sides. The movie depicts Jasper as a distraction to her "rightful love," Kelley. It's clear Jasper truly loves her, but it is also clear she does not love him back. This absolutely slaughters the romantic tension early in the story.

Leelee Sobieski does no harm here; however, her charm and kind performance do not fit a two-timing character like Samantha. John Hartnett is also right for the role of Jasper, but the movie gives him nothing to do except bicker with Kelley. Chris Klein gets to make a hunk name for himself here; he spends much of the movie shirtless, sweaty and overworked. Unfortunately he does not show off his acting ability, maybe because he has very little. The supporting cast is much more talented. Bruce Greenwood supplies the best performance in the film, but does not have near enough screen time to save anything but a few brief moments. I also enjoyed the performance by Stuart Wilson, who perfectly fits the role of a rich, controlling father of high social status.

Then we lean about Samantha's knee problem exactly one hour and ten minutes into the movie (another spoiler ahead). What is this, she has a serious incurable illness (yet another contrivance into the picture, approximately number eight). Her terminal disease brings the two competing young men together as friends, well, at least I think that is what the movie intended to show, that the loss of one loved by two nemeses can bring both together (cliché number nine).

Klein rehearses his valedictorian speech to demonstrate his character is more than a shallow stereotype, but we have seen this so many times before I would prefer a rich character rather than a deeply sentimental who hides actual feelings (cliché number, um, was it ten)?. The conflicts between Kelley and Jasper are desperate and inane; a "your mom" comment triggers a fist fight while they rebuild the establishment. There is a retread from "Armageddon," as Samantha and Kelley sprawl out in an open field, horny as hell, as he slowly moves his fingers around her body, naming areas after US cities (why not call that number eleven). The movie uses alcohol as a means to increase the romantic tension: an intoxicated Kelley makes a fool of himself after getting in a fight with Samantha's date, Jasper, but the following day he recites desires only to dance (cliché number, oh no, I am losing count).


This was a sad waste of two such promising actors. Chris Klein's character was unlikable from the start and never made an improvement. What did she see in him?? He was rarely kind, never thankful for what he does have...and a coward. Pass this one by on the shelves. You'll be glad you did.


Rich vs. poor. Big city vs. small town. White collar vs. blue collar. These things are not original themes in movies. So when one chooses to involve these themes, the situational story-line had better be very original, or very good. This one was neither. I never believed in the romance of the two young lovers in this movie. Neither convincing nor compelling, it just fell flat. Don't bother, even with a video rental.


This excruciatingly boring and unfunny movie made me think that Chaplin was the real Hitler, as only someone as evil as him could torture people with this tripe. I saw this movie remastered, which only made the suffering inflicted by this atrocity more severe. This movie is nothing but a pathetic, repetitive movie, which instead of inducing two hours of laughter, it induced two hours of suicidal urges. After the first 10 minutes of this, I began wishing that gas would start seeping from the speakers of the theatre.

If I could give it a zero out of ten I would happily do so. Avoid at all costs!


Wow, this movie was horrible. As a Bills fan I was really looking forward to it, but this was bad. They should have left it on the shelf it was on for 4 years. I can't believe a guy like Jon Voight would sign on for something like this.


I don't normally write reviews, but this "film" was special. I couldn't turn it off. I don't believe I've ever seen a worse movie, but there I sat, watching. It was like a horrible car wreck with blood flowing all over the highway. It was disgusting, but I couldn't turn away. Where do I start? The movie seems to think it's a sports thriller, but it's so utterly ridiculous, it can only be a comedy, but it's not funny, not even in a dumb/silly way. It's like watching your cousins try to act out a skit on family get-togethers. It's painful to watch, but at least it's only for a minute or two. Second String went on for over an hour.

Whoever was involved with making this movie should not work again. The writing, directing, acting, and everything was just terrible. The problem is I can't describe how bad it was; you just had to see it. And I'm sure this will NEVER be shown again, so unless you saw it, you're out of luck. I mean it was almost worth seeing just for the fact that it gave me some appreciation for every other "bad" film I've seen over my lifetime. And for every film I see in the future that I can't stand, I will think to myself, well, at least it wasn't bad as the Second String.


Why do I hate this? Let me list the ways:

I have nothing against Mary Pickford but a 32 year old woman playing a 12 year old is just stupid.

There's a fight scene in which kids are throwing bricks at each other and it's considered funny---and it goes on for 15 minutes

Strange how none of the kids are even remotely hurt

The title cards contain plenty of racial and ethnic slurs

For a "family" film the fights were WAY too violent (loved it when Pickford was punching it out with a little boy!) and the humor was just stupid

Seriously, 40 minutes in I gave up and turned it off. The slurs, racism and little kids throwing bricks at each other got to me. Also there was no plot that I could see. The only thing worth seeing in this film was William Haines who was a top leading man in the silent era.

Just painful. Avoid.


Elderbush Gilch was a big disappointment for me. I'd heared how great it was, how important it was. It just didn't strike me. It had a dim-witted story line, plus some moronic and sadistic Native American characters that are thurroughly offensive by today's standards. While most of D.W. Griffith's films have depth and intelegence, this one feels more like a formula-baised programme picture.

I loved seeing Lillian Gish and Mae Marsh in pre-Birth of a Nation roles, plus some of the staging of the battle scenes were pretty good. Acording to future Griffith cameraman Karl Brown, audiences were standing on their seats and cheering once the cavalry comes riding in at the end. I felt nothing. And beleave me, I lve watching Griffith's early work at Biograph. This film just isn't what it used to be.

The best thing about this film it that, for all of it's flaws, it has many of Griffith's touches to it. He handles his principal actors pretty well, plus the scene where the indians are encircling the cabin it reminiscent to the climax of Birth of a Nation, a far superior film that would send shock waves across America a little over a year later.


When voting I was going to give a 2 but when seeing that 1 meant awful it hit the nail on the head.The portrayal of native americans as blood thirsty savages is deeply disturbing to me.This is the third film I've seen of D.w. griffiths where races of men are stereotyped in ugly ways.The man isn't able to tell his side of the story so I'm going to try and keep away from attacking Mr. griffith personally.In my opinion the three films probably influenced the thinking of millions of people and their children's children.Films like this probably made for many of the resentments that are still with us..Some may say the camera work was great,the action a first for it's time.The positives are far outweighed by the negatives,it's like someone taking $10 from you and giving a dime back to make up for it.


While the writing was terrible, the acting was atrocious, the only thing that saved this "turd" was the breast count, but that wasn't enough to make me watch this again. All said and done I'm actually dumber from watching this movie. This was a new low for Troma. Lloyd Kaufman starting the movie wearing a garbage bag and making fart noises should have made me realize what I was getting into. This was by far one of the worst ever put out by the Troma team. The best place to show this movie would be to invalids, sense they can't get up to change the channel. To conclude this is not a swift recommendation to watch this movie just for the breasts.


I understand that this was Llyod Kaufman's attempt to save a movie that was the pits. The whole movie is voiced over since the audio reel was junk. The voice overs were SO bad and terrible quality. As much as I love Troma, they tend to be a little heavy on the voice over work. The acting was terrible. One thing I did enjoy from this movie was the quick cameo of Trey Parker doing the aristocrats joke with a goofy wig on. There are a lot of big director dudes in this movie like James Gunn and Eli Roth (friends of Lloyd Kaufman). Again I think this was Llyods attempt of saving a crappy movie and trying not to lose 1000s of dollars. I won't go on and on but this movie was a mess. Check out other Troma titles.


"Tales from the Crapper" is gory, disgusting, tasteless, offensive, lowbrow and scatological. But that's OK, I was prepared for all that from my previous Troma experiences. What I WASN'T prepared for is that it's also witless, unfunny and boring. Very little of the genuine anarchic spirit of films like "Class of Nuke'em High" has remained intact; in its place, we get ENDLESS fart jokes (to the point where you start wondering if Lloyd Kaufman is going senile, thinking that adults find loud farting so darn hilarious!) and a cynical, shameless exploitation of the viewer, who is essentially investing time and money to see a "film" that even Kaufman himself seems to know should never have been released in the first place. Oh yes, there is plenty of female nudity on display, but let's face it: the average porn film probably offers a better storyline, higher production values, funnier humor, and above all more RESPECT for its intended viewer than this atrocity.

P.S: Kelly Powers AKA Suzi Lorraine (the blonde lesbian student in the "How to make your own movie" segment) is one of the most beautiful women I have ever seen.


Troma founder, Lloyd Kaufman is The Crapkeeper in this anthology film made up of two films that were such celluloid feces that Llyod tried to salvage them by combining the two into one anthology film and throwing in copious amounts of nudity whenever possible. Does it work? nope, it's still crap that I'd have to scrape off my boots if I stepped in it.Will anyone like this mess? Sure, Young teen aged mongoloids with the combined IQs of a Vienna sausage have to laugh at something, I guess. For those who have brains that are even semi-functioning steer clear though and watch something less insulting to your intelligence, even "Dude, Where's my car" would do.

My Grade: F


With Matthias Hues on the cover and only $3.00, i had to buy it. I enjoyed some moments, like Hawks annoyance with the pleasure droids, but i only really watched to see Matthias Hues' scenes. I particularly enjoyed the showdown at the end. It was a cross between Clint Eastwood's "The Good, The Bad and The Ugly" and "For a Few Dollars More" (a 3 man quick-draw showdown, with a musical pocket watch used as the countdown timer). Apart from that, there's really nothing more I can add. The actors gave good performances, (all except the "Assassin Droid" whose performance was nothing outside of comical) but the movie really lacked depth and purpose; simply not enough to fill up 1hour and a half of standard movie time, so we're stuck with the main characters aimlessly wondering around from place to place for an hour or so, until the ball gets rolling. For example, the main character returns to the same strip club about 4 times, taking up two-fifths of the movie.

The scenery really lacked depth and creativity, probably due to the films budget. I don't think we ever did get to see this "perfect city" of New Angeles that was always talked about, in fact, when the main characters finally reached New Angeles, its set in a factory or warehouse full of pipes and walkways; hardly the kind of "kingdom" the owner/creator of an entire city would dwell in. The "super-high security" of New Angeles was also always talked about, but only a total of 15, maybe 20, security guards were counted, even when the alarm went off; not even close to Matthias' approximation of "at least a hundred men out there".

If you are a fan of any of the actors/actresses in this film, then you may want to watch it, simply to "add it to the list". However, if you value 1 and a half hour of your time, or $3.00 of your money, you may want to give this one a miss.


My first thoughts on this film were of using science fiction as a bad way to show naked women, althought not a brilliant story line it had quite a good ending


Cyber zone, as this DVD was sold in Oz, is about the worst B-Grade junk I have seen. Apart from a restrained deadpan act from Singer, indicating he knew how bad the movie was going to be, the other actors sway about genuine attempts at line delivery (Swanson and Quarry) or absurd imitations of classic movies scenes. Mathius Hues makes the most ham-fisted portrayal of dying since Jim Carrey's Mask. All of this with no real thread to suggest an attempt at a spoof by genre, period or any common vein is plain annoying. Don't even try to join the dots with the plot. It is Blade Runner, thinly disguised with no content, actors or scenery due to a very limited budget. "You gets what you pay for" is never more apparent. There is repeatedly annoying re-use of limited sets, with no attention to set dressing and a spew of special effects that would have hit the cutting room floor for Dr Who in 1976. The Helicopter explosion is worth a rewind to demonstrate my point. Of course there are masochists that will lap up this tripe but if you are watching this movie for a bet, make sure you get more than your pay rate. At $2 this DVD will make a cheap and interesting beer coaster.


I was given this film by my uncle who had got it free with a DVD magazine. Its easy to see why he was so keen to get rid of it. Now I understand that this is a B movie and that it doesn't have the same size budget as bigger films but surely they could have spent their money in a better way than making this garbage. There are some fairly good performances, namely Jack, Beth and Hawks, but others are ridiculously bad (assasin droid for example). This film also contains the worst fight scene I have ever seen. The amount of nudity in the film did make it seem more like a porn film than a Sci-Fi movie at times.

In conclusion - Awful film


In the early 1990's "Step-by-Step" came as a tedious combination of the ultra-cheesy "Full House" and the long-defunct loopy classic hit "The Brady Bunch". The differences between "Step-by-Step" and the two aforementioned shows was of course better writing, excellent comedic timing from almost all of it's actors, and a great deal funnier situations that weren't quite as sugar-coated as it's extremely popular predecessors. Admittedly though, even with the big boosts in the show's basic dynamics and all it still wasn't exactly spectacular, nor was it really even that memorable in the long line of corny family programming! It was just a much better time-passer, you might say, in comparison to the cutesy migraine-inducing "Full House", which coincidentally, ran neck-and-neck with "Step-by-Step" during that time period in terms of overall popularity. The show, now in syndication obviously, is certainly suitable family-fare but be sure to not expect much beyond that when watching it.


Back in the cold and creepy early 90's,a show called "Family Matters" aired and became an instant classic.The trick was to buy a manual in standard family situations and their solutions and insert some attempts to sarcastic remarks in it and you had yourself a lovely little stealing-is-wrong,parents-are-right-show. So that worked out fine, so Bickley-Warren had a new ambitious plan: making the exact same show again.

Here's the difference though: "Family Matters" had Urkel. "Step By Step" has the guy from those "Kickboxer"-sequels nobody saw. He says things like "dudette" and "the Dane-meister", and somehow the audience is still not supposed to hate him. I mean seriously, "dudette"? How can you even get that across your lips?

The rest of the people were mostly white versions of the whole Winslow-bunch, combined with some more one-or-zero-dimensional characters, like the dumb guy (JT. Well, Eddie), the smart girl (Laura), and a pretty girl who spends her days looking pretty(in theory).The character development was just awful in this show. Grover and The Cookie Monster have more depth than the Lambert family. Everybody just milked their stereotypes for what they were worth. They weren't worth much.

Powered by a massive laugh-and-cheer tape stolen from something funny,this show aired for a whopping 7 years,which was humiliating for the competition.Although,you'll have to note that this is the time where family sitcoms were pretty much all big hits,everybody just ignored their crappyness because well,it was the 90s,one more crappy show didn't hurt.


Yes, my summary just about tells it all.

If you haven't watched this, try it. But not for pleasure. For studies of one of the worst examples of trying to be politically correct, family-oriented and "cool" at the same time.

The men always think they know everything, are stupid, and finally loose to the magnificent women. Etc.. This is especially offensive, when all the characters are just as terrible and stereotypic. I mean, ok, "Cody" was funny one time or another, but unlike other "stupid characters(tm)" like Woody in Cheers or Joey in Friends, he doesn't get good lines. His stupidity is cast in a "duude" way, which gets quite annoying after a while.

The family morale is awful. Everything for the family. Mother and father are supreme dictators, who inbetween severe punishing and old-fashioned parenting, constantly say they "love" their kids, and then of course, in the end, the kids love them back *barf*.

And: There's always a "tender spot" like that squeezed into the "action", where american(c)(tm) morale lessons are forced upon the viewers, about sex (in a mature, you can't have sex before you're 18 (!!), kind of way), or drugs. Even church-habits are thoroughly described here. The whole concept is directly sickening, all made in a half-hearted way to make money. If there are people like Karen and Frank out there, please lock them up and desintegrate the key.

So, with themes ranging as far as revolting religious propaganda, I think it's fair to conclude as I did in my subject...


I cannot see how anyone can say that this was a real good entertaining movie. With a few well known actors I found it hard to believe that this was only made in 2005. It's crap! The acting is tantamount to amateur dramatics, poor amateur dramatics. Unless you want to laugh loudly at an amazing 100 minutes of pure corn, don't bother to download it or rent it, worst that I have seen in years. It's from the bygone days of acting, where cowboys are shooting 8 bullets from the six-shooters. The more well known the actor, the worse they were, Drury was just sad. I was extremely disappointed with Lee Majors, has he actually stooped to this sort of garbage? It was bad enough when he played the six million dollar man.


I'm not sure what the point of making this film was. It looked as if it was made by some historical society to be shown in your local 'Pistol Pete' museum. At first it appears that it could be the beginning of a Mad TV or SNL sketch. But then the joke is on you when there is no punchline and you realize that someone was taking this seriously. The story wasn't bad but the inclusion of the SASS members seemed to be a ploy (that worked) to get me to see the film. I swear, the trailer listed every character in the film down to "dead cowboy #5". The reason Westerns are so fun is the atmosphere and the characters it brings. I just had the feeling I was watching Civil War rean-actors dressed up as cowboys. Not even worth the digital video it was recorded on.


I love a good Western movie, but this was more like watching a play on stage or an act at the local street carnival show. I could only stand 38 minutes of it in hopes that it would improve, but it only got worse and I had to end it. Each actor(s) stated the lines as if reading directly from the script or cue cards. There was too much predictability to the lines and actions not as if a natural occurrence or conversation. The wig on Rachel Kimsey was obvious. The actresses playing Native American sisters, could have played non-native parts and should have. Wardrobe for the Native Americans could have been better and a little more authentic looking. If I decide to watch it with any friends in the future, I will do so, not with the expectations of watching a good Western, but with the expectations of watching an amateur comedy film production.